Sec 724

Where an agent receives money from his principal for specific objects, and the principal revokes the directions before the money is appropriated, the agent is liable to the principal in an action for money had and received.5 An agent, also, who repudiates his principal's authority, or who disposes of the principal's property in violation of orders, is at any time liable in this form of action for the money in his hands.6 An agent, also, intrusted with an article to sell may in this way be sued for the proceeds, whether the sale was for money or not.7 But when an agent, when performing his duties as such, loses money employed at the time in the agency, the remedy against him is, not a suit for money had and received, for to this the answer would be that he had employed the money as the principal directed, but an action on the case for negligence.1 - A previous demand is not necessary to sustain an action against a factor who improperly neglects to render an account of sales.2

Agent liable to principal subject to terms of agency.

B. & P. 559; Hunter V. Welsh, 1 Stark. 178; Hatten V. Robinson, 4 Blackf. 480.

1 Jackson V. Mayo, 11 Mass. 152; Emerson V. Baylies, 19 Pick. 55.

2 Ker V. Osborn, 9 East, 37S; Clar-ance V. Marshall, 2 C. & M. 495; Wy-man V. Hook, 2 Greenl. 338; Bigelow V. Jones, 10 Pick. 165; Baker V. Howell, 6 S. & R. 481; and other cases cited 2 Ch. on Cont. 11th Am. ed. 907.

3 Infra, sec 728.

4 Infra, sec 728, 786 et seq. 794.

5 Leake, 2d ed. 113; Wh. on Agency, sec 250; Taylor V. Lendey, 9 East, 49; Fletcher V. Marshall, 15 M. & W. 755; Parry V. Roberts, 3 A. & E. 118; Schee V. Hassinger, 2 Binn. 325.

6 Ibid.; Thorpe P. Thorpe, 3 B. & Ad. 580; Parry V. Roberts, 3 A. & E. 718; Fletcher V. Marshall, 15 M. & W. 755; Hemenway V. Hemenway, 5 Pick. 389; Jackson V. Baker, 6 Cow. 183; Chinn V. Chinn, 22 La. An. 599.

7 Miller V. Miller, 7 Pick. 136.

Sec 725

Even when a traffic is illegal, an agent receiving money to engage in it will not be entitled to retain as against his principal such money after the agent's authority is revoked,3 supposing the object of the suit be not to obtain a share in illegal profits.4 Nor can an agent, where part of the consideration was illegal, set up, after the accounts between him and the principal are closed, the illegal taint.5 But if the act of constituting the agency be itself a substantive crime, then there can be no recovery.6

Even though object be illegal.

1 Wh. on Agency, sec 277, 306, 537; Wh. on Neg. sec 156; Parry V. Roberts,.

3 A. & E. 118; Mazetti V. Williams, 1 B. & Ad. 415; Wilson V. Short, 6 Hare, 366; Farebrother V. Ansley, 1 Camp. 343; Bell V. Cunningham, 3 Pet. 69; Dodge V. Tileston, 12 Pick. 328; Hinde V. Smith, 6 Lansing, 464; Arrott V. Brown, 6 Whart. 9; Harvey V. Turner,.

4 Rawle, 223; Gilson V. Collins, 66 Ill. 136.

2 Supra, sec 575; Chapman V. Shaw,.

5 Greenl. 59; Langley V. Sturtevant, 7 Pick. 214; Cooley V. Betts, 24 Wend. 203; Witherup V. Hill, 9 S. & R. 11. One of several heirs agreed with the co-heirs to purchase certain shares of stock in a corporation for their joint benefit, he taking the conveyance, and the other heirs contributing their respective proportions of the purchase-money, subject to future adjustment. He refused, on acquiring title to the shares, to make any adjustment, informing the others that he had concluded to keep the stock himself. It was held in Massachusetts in 1880 that under such circumstances he was accountable in this form of action to the several heirs for their respective shares of the dividends. Colt V. Clapp, 127 Mass. 476.

3 Supra, sec 357; Taylor V. Lendey, 9 East, 49; Fletcher V. Marshall, 15 M. & W. 755; Parry V. Roberts, 3 A. & E. 118; Planters' Bk. V. Union Bk., 16 Wall. 483; Lestapies V. Ingraham, 5 Barr, 71; Daniels V. Barney, 22 Ind. 209; Chinn V. Chinn, 22 La. An. 599; and cases cited supra, sec 357; see, also, sec 335, 341, 343, 352.

4 Buck V. Albee, 26 Vt. 184; Lemon V. Grosskopf, 22 Wis. 447; cited Wald's Pollock, 328-9.

5 Ibid.; Farmer V. Russell, 1 B. & P. 296; Bonsfield V. Wilson, 16 M. & W. 185; Nioholson V. Gooch, 5 E. & B. 999; Murray V. Vanderbilt, 39 Barb. 140; Gilliam V. Brown, 43 Miss. 641; Anderson V. Moncrieff, 3 Desaus. 124; and see cases cited supra, sec 338, 357.

6 Supra, sec 353-7.