(f) Cole v. North Western Bank, L. E. 9 C. P. 470, 43 L. J. (C. P.) 194, affirmed in Ex. Ch., L. R. 10 C. P. 354, 44 L. J. (C. P.) 233.
(g) Wood v. Rowcliffe, 6 Hare, 191. See, also, Baines v. Swainson, 4 B. & S. 270, 32 L J. Q. B. 281, " the case of the commission agent, who informed the owners of goods that he had an opportunity of selling them, and having got samples, represented that he had sold the goods to a person who it was afterwards discovered had no existence, and having by that fraud got possession of the goods, pledged them to a third person, who made an advance bond fide and without knowledge of the fraud; and it was held that the latter acquired a good title to the goods under the Factors' Acts." Per WiUes, J., in Fuentes v. Montis, L. R. 3 C. P., p. 279.
(h) Wood v. Rowcliffe, supra.
(i) Fuentes v. Montis, L. R. 3 C. P. 268, 4 C. P. 93; 37 L. J. (C. P.) 137, 38 lb. 95.
Session was that of an agent, it was held that the pledger was not an agent at all but a wrongdoer, and not within the Acts, and that the pledge was not a transaction within their protection. This case, therefore, decided that a secret revocation of the agent's power would defeat the rights of bond fide pledgees (k). The case, however, which seems to have led immediately to the changes of the law produced by 40 & 41 Vict., c. 39, is Johnson v. Credit Lyonnais Co. (l), the facts in which were as follows : One Hoffmann, a broker in the tobacco trade, but who *also dealt in tobacco as an importing merchant, having imported a quantity of that article, left it in bond in the warehouses of the St. Katherine's Dock Company, receiving the usual dock warrants; and the tobacco was entered in the books of the Company as that of Hoffmann. This tobacco Hoffmann sold to the plaintiff, who carried on the business of a tobacco manufacturer at Bolton, in Lancashire, but it not suiting the plaintiff's purpose to take the tobacco out of bond, which would have involved the necessity of paying the duty before he wanted the tobacco, he did what it appeared was frequently, but not always, done in the tobacco trade by purchasers in order to avoid the immediate payment of the duty; he left the tobacco in bond in the name of Hoffmann, and left the dock warrants in Hoffmann's hands, and took no steps to have any change made in the books of the Dock Company as to the ownership of the goods. According to the plaintiff's statement, he was ignorant of the fact that, when goods are thus deposited in the warehouses of the Dock Company, dock warrants are issued to the party depositing which represent the goods, and are capable of being transferred so as to enable the transferee to obtain possession of the goods. Being thus the ostensible owner of the tobacco, Hoffmann fraudulently obtained advances, on the pledge of a portion of it, from the Credit Lyonnais Company, the defendants, who acted in perfect good faith under the belief, induced by his *being in possession of the goods and of the indicia of ownership, that Hoffmann was the owner of the tobacco. The defendants, on the completion of the transaction, caused the entry of the goods to be transferred from the name of Hoffmann to their own in the books of the Dock Company, and took fresh dock warrants from the Company, giving up the former ones. The transactions between Hoffmann and the defendants were wholly unknown to the plaintiff; his statement also that he was unaware of the practice of giving dock warrants as evidence of the title of the party to whom they are given, or of the transfer of such warrants on alienation of the property, does not seem to have been questioned. Upon thi3 state of facts Denman, J., gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the value of the tobacco pledged to the defendants; and on appeal that judgment was affirmed. The Court of Appeal held (m) that Hoffmann was not entrusted by the plaintiff as his factor or agent with the documents of title within the meaning of the then existing Factors' Acts; and also that the plaintiff's conduct in leaving the indicia of title in Hoffmann's hands was not such as to disentitle him to recover the value of the tobacco from the defendants. After, however, the decision of Denman, J., and before the appeal, the statute 40 & 41 Vict., c. 39, was passed (on the *10th of August, 1877), which alters the law in some material particulars.
(k) Benjamin on Sales, book v., part 1, p. 806, 3rd edit.
(l) L. R. 2 C. P. D. 224; 3 C. P. D. (C. A.) 32; 47 L. J. (Q. B., etc.) 241.
(m) 3 C. P. D. 32, 47 L. J. (Q. B., etc.) 241.
That Act, after reciting that "doubts have arisen with respect to the true meaning of certain provisions of the Factors' Acts, and it is expedient to remove such doubts and otherwise to amend the said Acts, for the better security of persons buying or making advances on goods, or documents of title to goods, in the usual and ordinary course of mercantile business;" enacts as follows:
"(1.) In this Act, the expression 'the principal Acts' means the following Acts; that is to say, The Act of the 4th Geo. IV. (1823), c. 83. The Act of the 6th Geo. IV. (1825), c. 94. The Act of the 5th and 6th of Her Majesty (1842), c. 39. And the said Acts and this Act may be cited for all purposes as the ' Factors' Acts, 1823 to 1877.' "
"(2.) Where any agent or person has been entrusted with and continues in the possession of any goods, or documents of title to goods, within the meaning of the principal Acts as amended by this Act, any revocation of his entrustment or agency shall not prejudice or affect the title or rights of any other person who, without notice of such revocation, purchases such goods, or makes advances upon the faith or security of such goods or documents."'
This section applies to the state of facts in *Fuentes v. Montis (supra, p. *475); and the rights of bond fide pledgees or purchasers are no longer liable to be defeated by a secret revocation of the authority of the agent, in whose hands, notwithstanding the revocation, the goods or documents of title are actually remaining (n).