2. The plaintiff's claim is, as the incumbent of the said benefice, for £150, being the cost of the necessary repairs to the buildings of such benefice which the defendant was directed to pay to the plaintiff by the order of the Bishop of duly made in pursuance of the Act in that behalf. The plaintiff claims £150. Defence. 1. Within five years of the avoidance of the said benefice the buildings thereof were, at the defendant's request, duly inspected by the diocesan surveyor, who reported what repairs were necessary to be done. 2. The said repairs were forthwith carried out to the satisfaction of the said diocesan surveyor, who gave a certificate of their completion. All agents entitled to commis sion. Ship broker's commission. Commission (a). Claim in an Action for Commission by a House Agent. The plaintiff's claim is for commission for work done as a house-broker for the defendant at his request. and their cost, and, by sect. 36, "The sum stated in the order as to the cost of the repairs shall be a debt due from the late incumbent, his executors or administrators, to the new incumbent, and shall be recoverable as such at law and in equity." The money, when recovered by the new incumbent, shall be paid over to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and it will ultimately be applied to the reparation of the buildings. (a) In the ordinary course of commercial dealings, a compensation is impliedly understood to be due to every person who undertakes the duties and services of an agent, the amount, in the absence of agreement, being governed by the usage of trade; but where there is an agreement as to the amount and mode of payment, that cannot be departed from. Thus, a commission agent employed to negotiate a sale upon the terms that he is to be paid a commission on the amount of purchase-money, or on the happening of a certain event, will not be entitled to any commission until the purchase-money has been received, or the event has happened, unless there has been fraudulent delay or wilful neglect on the part of the employer. (Bull v. Price, 5 M. & P. 2; 7 Bing. 237; Alder v. Boyle, 4 C. B. 635.) So if the commission is to be paid on the "net proceeds," it is payable only on the actual sum which reaches the pocket of the principal, after deducting all charges and expenses. (Caine v. Horsfall, 1 Exch. 519.) Shipbrokers are said to be usually entitled by the custom and usage of trade to 5 per cent. commission upon the freight payable upon charter-parties obtained by their exertions; and the right to the commission does not depend upon the fact of the ship's earning freight, and the claim is not liable to be cut down by the loss of the vessel or her failure to get a cargo. (Hill v. Kitching, 3 C. B. 306. See also Burnett v. Bouch, 9 C. & P. 624; Boulton v. Jones, 2 H. & N. 564.) In Lockwood v. Lerick (8 C. B. N. S. 603; 29 L. J. C. P. 340) it was decided that where a commission agent employed by a manufacturer to obtain orders is to receive a commission "on all goods bought" by persons from whom he obtains orders, the commission is earned as soon as a valid bargain of purchase and sale has been made between the manufacturer and the purchaser introduced by such agent, whether the goods are at the time in existence or not, and whether the contract is or is not eventually carried out, and whether it turns out a bad bargain to the principal or a good one. So where the defendant contracted with the plaintiff "In the event of your procuring me the sum of £2,000 I agree to pay you a commission of 23 per cent. on the sum received," it was held by the Court of Appeal that when the plaintiff procured a person willing to lend the money upon proper security being given, he was entitled to his commission, though the negotiation ultimately went off from the defendant not being able to offer proper security. (Fisher v. Drewett, 48 L. J. Ex. 32.) It Housesometimes happens that a man having a house to let or sell places it in agent's the hands of several house-agents, with instructions to secure a tenant or commispurchaser-in such a case the successful agent is alone entitled to com- sion. mission, unless instructions have been given to the other house-agents to advertise the house, or render some special service entitling them by the custom of the trade to some remuneration. (Prickett v. Badger, 1 C. B. N. S. 296; 26 L. J. C. P. 33.) But if the relation of buyer and seller is really brought about by the act of the agent, he is entitled to his commission, although the actual sale was not effected by him. (Green v. Bartlett, 14 C. B. N. S. 685; and to the same effect see the recent case of Wilkinson v. Alston, 48 L. J. 733.) The defendants contracted to pay the plaintiff a commission for superintending repairs to be executed by them on certain ships belonging to the Great Eastern Railway Company. The plaintiff, at the time of such contract being made, was in a position of trust in relation to the railway company, having been employed by them as an engineer to advise them as to the repairs; and the contract between defendants and plaintiff was made in part consideration of a promise that the plaintiff would use his influence with the railway company to induce them to accept the defendants' tender for the repair of the ships. The jury found that the contract, though calculated to bias the mind of the plaintiff, had not. in fact, done so, and that he had not, in consequence thereof, given less How agent's right to commis sion affected by death of principal. The defendant says: Defence. 1. He never employed or requested the plaintiff to let either of the premises mentioned in the claim. 2. Neither of them was let by or through the plaintiff. 3. In the alternative, the commission the defendant agreed to pay was 21 per cent. and not 5. 4. The defendant brings into Court the sum of £10 10s., and says that the same is sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim herein. Claim by several Plaintiffs in the alternative for Commission on 1. In the month of May, 1876, the defendant agreed with the plaintiffs that in consideration the plaintiffs would introduce to the defendant a purchaser for a steamship belonging to him called the "Amboto," the defendant would pay to the plaintiffs commission at the rate of 2 per cent. upon the purchase-money of the said vessel. 2. In the said month of May, the plaintiffs introduced to the defendant certain persons trading as the Inman Steamship beneficial advice to the company as to the defendants' tender than he would otherwise have done. It was held that the plaintiff could not maintain an action for commission under the contract, on the ground that, even although the plaintiff had not been induced to act corruptly, the consideration for the contract was corrupt. (Harrington v. The Victoria Gracing Dock Co., 3 Q. B. Div. 549; also Smith v. Sorby, 3 Q. B. Div. 552.) An authority to sell or let upon certain terms and for a certain commission is revoked by the death of the principal before the authority has been acted upon and executed, so that if the agent sells after the death of his principal, he will not be entitled to the commission unless the personal representative has renewed the contract. (Campanari v. Woodburn, 15 C. B. 400; 24 L. J. C. P. 13.) The right of the agent to be reimbursed upon the revocation of his authority, otherwise than by death, depends upon the special terms of the agreement and the usage of trade. (See on this subject, Simpson v. Lamb, 17 C. B. 616.) Where a house-agent, employed to sell at a given price, succeeds in finding a purchaser but the principal then declines to sell, the agent is entitled to sue for a reasonable remuneration for his services. For all work done by the agent in discharge of his business as agent, he is paid by his commission, and can make no extra charge; but for work done by order of his principal beyond his duty as agent, he is entitled to make an extra charge. (Marshall v. Parsons, 9 C. & P. 658.) (a) By Order XVI. r. 1 several plaintiffs may in the same action claim together in the alternative. Company, Limited, who subsequently purchased the "Amboto" at the price of £19,000. 3. The plaintiffs will, in the alternative, contend that the defendant made the aforesaid agreement with some or one of them, and that he is now liable to pay to some or one of them the sum of £475 commission under the said agreement. The plaintiffs, or in the alternative some or one of them, claim or claims £475, with interest until judgment. 3. Claim for Commission for Finding a Charterer. 1. In December, 1876, the plaintiffs were employed by the defendant to find a charterer for the defendant's ship the "H." from India, upon the terms that the defendant should pay the plaintiffs a commission of 11 per cent. on the freight that might be obtained. 2. The plaintiffs found a charterer for the said ship, and the defendants earned £5754 freight under such charter-party. The plaintiffs claim £. 4. Claim for Commission by an Auctioneer. The plaintiff's claim is for commission and expenses in connection with a sale of the defendant's household furniture and effects at 3, King Street, Walworth, which the plaintiff, as an auctioneer, conducted at the defendant's request on the 3rd of May, 1881. Particulars of the plaintiff's claim :— 10 per cent. commission upon £400 Advertisements of the said sale in newspapers. Bills and posting The plaintiff claims £45. Defence and Counter-claim. Defence. £40 0 0 20 0 3 0 0 1. It was verbally agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff should only charge a commission of 5 per cent. upon the sum realised by the said sale. 2. As to the claim for advertisements and bills the defendant at the time when he instructed the plaintiff to conduct the said sale paid to him the sum of £5, which it was agreed was to cover the cost of all disbursements and expenses in connection with the same. Counter-claim. 3. The defendant says that he has suffered damage by various breaches by the plaintiff of his duty as an auctioneer in regard to the said sale. Particulars of the said breaches are as follows :— The plaintiff failed to properly advertise and announce the sale. He attended the said sale, and attempted to conduct it in a state of intoxication, and he sold many articles for less than the reserve price the defendant had placed on them. The defendant counter-claims £150 damages. Who are common carriers. Common carriers bound to carry all goods offered to them. Bound to carry within a reasonable time. Common Carriers (a). 1. Action by Consignee against Carrier for Delay in Delivery. 1. On the 3rd of August, 1880, John Smith, of Grimsby, delivered to the defendants, as common carriers, six hampers of cod, consigned to the plaintiff in London. (a) COMMON CARRIERS BY LAND.-Who are common carriers.]—A common carrier is a person who undertakes to transport from place to place for hire the goods of those who think fit to employ him. The owners of coaches, and of carts and waggons carrying for hire between fixed termini, are common carriers. Railway, canal, and navigation companies may become common carriers (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, ss. 86, 89; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 42, ss. 5, 6); and such companies are generally common carriers, but only as to such things as they publicly profess to carry. (Johnson v. Midland Railway Company, 4 Ex. 367.) The owner of a lighter, hoy, or flat which he uses regularly for carrying therein for hire from place to place on the banks of the Mersey the goods of such persons as choose to employ him, though not plying regularly between fixed termini, is a common carrier. (Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson, L. R. 7 Ex. 267; 9 Ex. 338; 41 L. J. Ex. 110; 43 L. J. Ex. 216; 31 L. T. 95.) Liabilities at common law.]-Common carriers are bound to receive and carry all goods offered to them for which the person requiring them to be carried is ready and offers to pay reasonable hire. (Pickford v. Grand Junction Rail. Co., 8 M. &. W. 372; Garton v. Bristol and Exeter Rail. Co., 30 L. J. Q. B. 273.) And they are bound to complete carrying within a reasonable time, having regard to all the circumstances, but they are not responsible for the consequences of delay arising from causes beyond their own control (Taylor v. Great Northern Rail. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 385); and provided they carry by a reasonable and usual route, they are not bound to carry by the shortest route, even though enabled by statute to charge a mileage rate for carriage. (Myers v. London and South-Western Rail. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 1.) Common carriers are not bound to take extraordinary measures, if the road is obstructed by snow, for accelerating the journey, though the delay may be injurious |