This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913. Excerpt: ... RECENT CASES. Agency--Principal's Liability To Third Persons In Tort--Fraud: Liability Of Principal For Fraud Of Agent Committed For Benefit Of Agent.--The defendant's clerk, who conducted the defendant's conveyancing business without supervision, fraudulently induced the plaintiff to convey her property to him, and then disposed of the property for his own benefit. Held, that the defendant is liable. Lloyd v. Grace, Smith, & Co., 1912 A. C. 716. The House of Lords in this case overrules the former English doctrine that a principal is not liable for the fraud of an agent unless benefited by the fraud. British Mutual Banking Co. v. Charnwood Forest Ry. Co., 18 Q. B. D. 714. See Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated, 1006 A. C. 439, 446; Whitechurch v. Cavanagh, 1902 A. C. 117, 141. The American cases make no such requirement. Tome v. Parkersburg Branch R. Co., 39 Md. 36; McCord v. Western Union Tel. Co., 39 Minn. 181. The principal's liability for contracts made by his agent has never been thus limited. Hambro v. Burnand, 1904 2 K. B. 10; North River Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 262. The principal case, in assimilating the fraud cases to the contract cases, correctly decides that the motive of the agent, which is material in creating other tort liability, has here no logical bearing. The fundamental question as to which of the two innocent parties should bear the loss should be resolved against the principal when the defrauded party has dealt with an agent, and his acts are of the very kind which he is employed to do. Bills And Notes--Payment And Discharge--Maker Not Discharged By Indorser's Payment To Indorsee.--The indorser of a note paid the full amount of the note to the indorsee. The latter retained possession of the instrument, and subsequently sued t...