Secretarial practice

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1828236004

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-249926

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Secretarial practice

Edition:: fourth edition

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: viii, 987 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Chapter XXI. Powers of attorney

Collection:: Economics Books

POWERS OF ATTORNEY 285 Where an attorney acting within the scope of his authority Fraud. commits a fraud, the person who has been defrauded may hold the principal responsible, even in cases where the principal has not derived any benefit from the fraudulent activities of his attorney [Lloyd v. Grace Smith (1912), A.C. 716]. If, however, the third party is aware that the attorney is using his powers for his own benefit in fraud of the donor of the power, he will be accountable to the donor for any property so transferred to him by the attorney. For where the act of an attorney is on the face of it done for the private purposes of the attorney himself and not for the benefit of his principle, the third party cannot rely on the doctrine of ‘apparent authority’ or claim protection as an innocent party: knowledge—that is to say, actual or constructive notice— affects the whole position [Reckitt v. Barnett, Pembroke & Slater, Ltd. (1929), A.C., 176]. What may amount to notice is illustrated by the case of Reckitt v. Nunburnholme (1929) 45 T.L.R. 629. The plain- tiff’s attorney, Lord Terrington, who was also the defendant’s solicitor, and collected her dividends and kept her pass book, drew a cheque on the plaintiff's banking account, payable to ‘life insurance or bearer’ and crossed ‘not negotiable,’ signing it ‘Sir Harold J. Reckitt by Terrington, his attorney,” and without informing the defendant paid it into her account at another bank. At his request the defendant then drew a cheque on her account, which would otherwise not have been in sufficient funds, in settlement of a trans- action between her and the attorney, who was in reality defrauding both her and the plaintiff. The plaintiff success- fully claimed the amount of the cheque from the defendant, on the ground that the latter, through the agency of her bank, had constructive notice that she had been credited with money belonging to the plaintiff, who was under no obligation to her (i.e. that the power of attorney was being used otherwise than for the purposes of the plaintiff's affairs) and that she was equitably bound to refund the amount b. which she had been thus enriched. Where a forged instrument induces contractual relations Forgery between parties ignorant of the forgery, and acting in an honest belief as to the genuineness of the document, it is the person that set the negotiations in motion by the intro- duction of the forged instrument who must bear the loss. Thus, where it became necessary to decide whether a bank or a stockbroker was to lose the value of stock improperly transferred through a forged power of attorney presented by the stockbroker, when both parties had acted in

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Secretarial practice

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation