PO

Jurisp.— 1. À principal may sue his agent in account or for monies had, ete, at his election.—- Dubord vs Roy, I R. de L,, 352.

2, The mandator has a direct action against his mandatory for monies collected and not paid over, and the mandator is not obliged to resort to the actio mandati, In the absence of any allegation or proof to the contrary, the act of a mandatory in collecting money for his principal will he held to be a non-commercial act. The prescription of thirty years applies to the above case where a mandatory collected monies for his mandator.— Joseph & Fhillips, XIX L, C. J., 162,

3, A mandataire who does not execute the mandat committed to him, must notify the mandant of his inexecutior of the trust.— In an action of account by a creditor, who was a party to a deed of trust for the benefit of creditors from insolvent debtors to the defendants, the mandataries who plead that they had sold the trust estate to one of the insolvents who had underiakon to pay the creditors, are not thereby absolved from liability to account.—The court will order an account, reserving the question of the liability of the defendants for the whole or a part of the creditors demand till a later stage of the cause.— Torrance vs Chapman, VI EL. C, J., 32.

4. An auctioneer is bound to deliver to his principal the notes he may have received for the goods he had sold, whether he garantees the sales or not.— If he sells goods for his principal on purchasers notes, he has no right to accept from the purchaser a note in which the price of goods belonging to another party is combined.— The most sasonable interpretation of an agreement to sarantee sales, where notes are given, is the garantor’s liability to indorse them.— Sinclair & Leeming, V L, C. J., 247.

1714. Il doit l'intérêt sur les deniers du mandant qu’il emploie À son usage, à dater de cet emploi, et aussi sur le reliquat de compte À compter du jour qu’il est mis en demeure.

110,43, Mandati.— Pothier, Mandat, n° 51 et 56.— C, N., 1996.

Jurisp.—1. Tho appellant, some twenty years ago, received money from an insolvent estate as agent for the respondent. He was condemned to refund the same with interest from date of receipt. He appeals on the ground that he should not have been condemned to pay interest. He never notified his principals he had received the money and the judgment must be confirmod,- Joseph & Phillips, M., 22nd March, 1875.

?, In a case of mandat under the civil law, the only prescription that can apply is that of 30 years, unless the defendant shew by his pleas that some exception exists in his favour.— Phillips vs Joseph, XVI LE, C, J,, 104,

SECTION II