266 trrm AUTHORITY I (Part 21

sion from him, and falsely asserts that his acts are within it.‘ Edwardsv. Dooley, 120 N. Y. 540, 24 N. E. ,8Z7. The limited scope of Marks’agency was indicated to the defendant when he announced that hemust see the owner of the premises before renting the same, and ifthe owner did not extend the authority, and did not do any acts fromwhich the defendant would be justified in‘ believing that the powers ofMarks had been extended, the defendant did not come into the possession of the premises with the consent of the owner, and the orderappealed from should be affirmed.The decision of the justice below, upon the conflict of evidence inrespect to this point, must, as we have already indicated, be conclusive.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

___i:_i__.

SECTION 4.—EXPRESS AND IMPLIED AUTHORITY. l -

FARMERS’ & MECHANICS’ BANK v. BUTCHERS’ &DROVERS’ BANK;

(Court of Appeals of New York, 1857. 16 N. Y. 125, 69 Am. Dec. 678.)

Action by a holder for value of three checks for $1,000 each, andtwo for $1,500 each, for the face of the checks. They had all beencertified as good by defendant’s paying teller, who had full authorityto certify checks when the drawer hadisuflicient funds in the bank,but who was instructed not to certify when there were not sufiicientfunds on deposit; Green, the drawer of these checks, induced theteller to certify when there were no funds by telling him he wantedthem for temporary use, and they should not become a charge uponthe bank.COMSTOCK, J. (dissenting).” * * * The question I now proposeto examine is whether the teller had power to enter into these contracts

Presenting oneself as agent, and making declaration to that effect, createno valid apparent authority. Tompkins Mach. C0. v. Peter, S4 Tex. 627. 19S. W. 860 (1892). Agents cannot empower themselves to act. Crawford v.Whittaker, 42 W. Va. 430, 26 S. E. 516 (1896); Edwards v. Dooley, 120 N. Y.540, 24 N. E. 827 (1&)0). The apparent authority is that which he appears tohave from that which he actually does have, and not from that which he maypretend to have, or from his actions on occasions which were unknown to andunratified by his principal. Oberne v. Burke, 30 Neb. 581, 46 N. W. 838 (1890).containing a valuable discussion. There is a distinction between the apparent powers and the acts apparently, but not really, within the power.Mechanics’ Bank v. N. Y. & N. H. Ry. Co., 13 N. Y. 599 (1856); Van Eppesv. Smith, 21 Ala. 317 (1852).28 Part of the dissenting opinion is omitted. The majority opinion [hereomitted] held the bank liable on the ground that there was a distinctionbetween the terms of a power and facts entirely extraneous, upon which theright to exercise the authority conferred may depend. One dealing with the

Ch. 1) rwrunn AND nxrnnr 267

as the agent of the defendants. In the first and most obvious viewof an agency of any description, the principal is bound by such acts ashe has authorized, and no others.” In a just sense, this is universallyand necessarily true, because the proposition is involved in the veryidea of agency. If there are apparent exceptions in the books, they arenot such in fact, but are merely varieties in the application of the rule,which do not contradict the rule itself. This will appear when we consider the modes in which powers are derived from a principal to anagent so as to bind the former in favor of third parties.An agency may be constituted by writing. \Vhen this is the case,the agent takes precisely such authority as the instrument confers, upon a fair construction of the language used, taken in connection withthe general or particular purpose of the power. An authority thus derived of course includes, in the absence of special restrictions, all suchincidental powers and means as are necessary in the execution of themain purpose. The agency may also be created by a special verbalappointment. I use the word special, not with reference to the powersto be exercised, but to the mode of creating them by special or expresswords. When the language of such an appointment is once ascertained,it is perfectly obvious that the authority of the agent is precisely whatit would be if it were conferred by a writing in the same language.But there is another, and, for all purposes connected with the present inquiry, only one other, mode of delegating power. Without anyexpress or special appointment, an implied agency may arise from theconduct of a party. Story on Agency, § 54. \Vhere a person hasrecognized a course of dealing for him by another, or a series of actsof a particular kind, an implied agency is thereby constituted to carryon the same dealing or to do acts of the same character. Now, theonly difference between such an agency and those which are createdby express appointment, whether verbal or in writing, is that the lattermay, by the very terms of the power, be confined to a single transaction or act, while the very existence of the former is derived from acourse of recognized dealing or a series of recognized acts. This implied agency is therefore never a special one, in the sense in whichthat term has generally been used. All express agencies may or maynot be special, according as they authorize, or do not, more than a singleact. r

.

Although much has been said concerning general and special agencies, there never was any other intelligible distinction indicated by those

agent ls bound to know the extent or the power, but not these extrinsic facts,such as whether the drawer had funds. As to this peculiar New York doctrine, see 5 Col. Law Rev. 261.99 The authority of an agent may be shown, either directly by express wordsof appointment, either spoken or written, or it may be implied or indirectlyshown, by evidence of the relative situation of the parties, the nature ot thebusiness and the character ot the intercourse between the parties justifyingsuch an inference. Acts and doings are often quite as significant as wordsspoken. Geylin v. De Villeroi, 2 Houst. 311 (1860).

268I

THE AUTHORITY (Part 2

terms. VVhere this distinction does not exist, in other words, wherethe power is not special in this sense, agencies by express appointmentand those implied from conduct are entirely similar in all their characteristics and incidents. In the one class, the authority is manifestedby an express delegation; in the other, it is presumed or implied fromthe conduct of the principal. This presumption is allowed even againstthe real facts of the case, where the rights of bona fide dealers areconcerned. In all this class, it is presumed that the principal has actually delegated power to do the acts which he has been in the habit of

recognizing and approving. The power thus presumed is to be judgedin all respects as though the delegation were actually shown. It willjustify and uphold acts of the same kind, or, in other words, withinthe presumed authority, but no others. -

I have observed that there may be seeming contradictions of thefundamental doctrine, that a principal is bound only by such a‘cts ofhis agent as he has duly authorized. This presumptive or impliedagency is one of these, because a man may have accepted and approvedacts which he never authorized, and so be bound, as to third persons,by similar acts. Another and the only other of these apparent contradictions is where the acts done by the agent are justified, as to innocent dealers, by the authority, whether conferred by express dele

gation or presumed in the manner indicated, but are opposed to specialprivate restrictions. In such cases the liability of the principal restsupon a just distinction between the power conferred and private instructions as to its exercise. But the power must in all cases be vestedeither actually or presumptively, and if it be not, the principal cannotbe charged.The principles, so far stated, are simple and elementary, althoughthey have been somewhat obscured by loose and indeterminate expressions in the books. Applying them to the present inquiry, it becomesplainly of no importance whether the power of Mr. Peck, the defendants’ teller, to certify checks, was derived from a special appointmentor from a recognition of his acts. At the circuit it appears to havebeen placed on the ground of recognition, and no special appointmentwas shown. The difference is merely in the mode of constituting theagency. The power in either case is the same. Viewing it as derivedor implied from acts recognized and approved, the inquiry at the circuit should have been, what were those acts? If they were confinedto the certification of checks drawn upon actual deposits, then thepower to be implied or presumed was to do acts of the same character.but not of a character wholly different, although clothed in the sameform.In a word, the certifying authority of the teller is to be construedand treated in all respects as though it had been given to him by awritten instrument specially defining and restricting it; and viewingthe authority in this manner, we are to inquire whether, under a powerexpressly confined to the certification of checks drawn upon sufficient

Ch. 1) NATURE mp nx'r1-:x'r 269

funds on deposit with the defendants, the teller could bind them bycertificates which were fictitious and false. These certificates, as wehave seen, are to be regarded as acceptances; and another mode of stating the inquiry therefore is

,

could the teller, with authority only to

accept checks drawn upon actual funds, bind his principals, by accepting for the accommodation of the drawer, when there were no fundson deposit and none in expectancy? .

This question, it is proper now to observe, cannot be determined inthe plaintiffs’ favor on the ground that the limitations upon the agent’spower were in the nature of private instructions merely, in regard toits exercise. The difficulty which meets us in this view of the case is

that the power exercised is not embraced at all in the commission. Anauthority to accept drafts, in the regular business of the principal, upon funds of the drawer, is a precise and well defined authority. Itcannot, in my opinion, include acceptances out of the principal's business, and for the accommodation of third persons. So, an authority toaccept or certify checks, in the regular course of banking business,would seem to be equally definite. It does not embrace a power topledge the responsibility of the bank for the accommodation of persons who are not depositors and have no funds.

It is urged that the teller is a proper agent or officer to answer questions and give information as to the funds of a person who draws hischeck. But this is a very different thing from entering into a written

engagement which operates to transfer the fund, if there be any, fromthe depositor, and which, whether there be any funds or not, imposes

a pecuniary obligation on the bank, to last until barred by the generalstatute of limitations. It ought not to be contended seriously that such

a power can be derived from the simple practice in a bank of turningto its books and communicating to inquirers, through the teller or book

keeper, the condition of its customers’ accounts. * * *

MANN’S EX’RS v. ROBINSON.

(Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 1881. 19 W. Va. 49, 42 Am.

- Rep. 771.)

Action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land.One Hunter, as agent of Mann, sold the land to Robinson for partcash and part bonds. Hunter received payment of all the bonds. Bothprincipal and agent were now dead. The circuit court held the payment to Robinson good and decreed a deed to Robinson.GREEN, ].*°

* * * Some of the text-books lay it down broadly, “that an agent employed to sell has no authority as such to receivepayment of the purchase-money." See Sugden on Vendors (14th Ed.,

3° Part of the opinion is omitted.

1

to-1o THE AUTHORITY (Part 2

8th Am. Ed. 1873) vol. 1, c. 1, § 3, par. 11, p. 70, bottom p. 48. Iapprehend, that this broad proposition needs qualification. If theproperty be personal property, the authority to sell for cash wouldcarry with it generally the power and authority to receive the purchasemoney.“ See Hackney v. jones, 3 Humph. 612; Taylor v. Nussbaum,2 Duer, 302; Higgins et al. v. Moore, 34 N. Y. 417; Cross v. Haskins,13 Vt. 536, 540. But if the subject-matter of the authority to sell beland, it is important to determine accurately, what is meant by author

ity to sell. There cannot be a perfected sale of land but by conveyance; and a power of attorney under hand 'a.nd seal authorizing anagent to sell and convey land for cash would confer on the agent thepower to receive in cash the purchase-money, when the sale was made.

See Peck et al. v. Harriott et al., 6 Serg. & R. 146, 9 Am. Dec. 415.On the other hand a verbal or parol authority to sell would mean simply an authority to contract to sell.the land; for no verbal or parolauthority could be given to make a perfected sale, that is, a conveyance. Such authority must be under seal. Ordinarily an authority tocontract to sell would not carry with it an authority to collect the purchase-money, See Mynn v. Iollifie, 1 Moo. & R.‘ 327.”In Ireland v. Thompson, 56 E. C. L. 167 and 168 (4 Man. G. &S.), Maule, Judge, in speaking of this case, says: “In the case ofMynn v. ]ollifi‘e, 1 M. & R. 326, it was decided that an agent employedto sell an estate is not, as such, authorized to receive the purchasemoney. And there is no doubt, that on the sale of an estate to implysuch an authority would be most inconvenient and unnecessary; it

being clearly for the interest of the vendor, that he, and not his agent,should receive the purchase-money; and no inconvenience to any onearising out of the limit to the authority of the agent, which excludes hisright to receive the money. The proper course is clearly, that the vendee should retain the money and the vendor the estate, till the conveyance is made; and thus neither of them runs any risk of losing themoney.”These general views seem to rne eminently sound; and as I understand the case of Peck v. Marriott, 6 Serg. & R. 146, 9 Am. Dec. 415.they are the views entertained by that court, though not so expressedin that case.

81 In case of sale of land, Hampton v. Moorhead, 62 Iowa, 91, 17 N. W. 202(1883), $2,000 paid to agent. ' ,83 Presumptively a sale is to be for cash. A usage at the place of sale mayrebut this presumption. Winders v. Hill, 141 N. C. 694, 54 S. E. 440 (1906);Marble v. Bang, 54 Minn. 277, 55 N. W. 1131 (1893). But the authority, alwaysunderstood, to do all things necessary to the execution of the power requiresthe agent empowered to sell and convey as a mediate act, to receive the price.Peck v. Harriett, 6 Serg. & R. 146. 9 Am. Dec. 415 (1820). It the agent makesa contract he has no power to make, then he has no right to receive part 0!the purchase price, neither has he before any contract of sale is entered into.Schaetfer v. Mut. Benefit Ins. Co., 38 Mont. 459, 100 Pac. 225 (1909). Vvhitev. Lee, 97 Miss. 493. 52 South. 206 (1910), as to mere authority to contmct fora sale, but not to convey.

Ch. 1) ‘NATURE AND EXTENT _ 271

Sugden to sustain his general proposition refers also to Pole v.Leask, 28 Beav. 562, but I have not access to this case. Doubtless thereare some cases, where a parol or verbal authority to sell land wouldunder the circumstances be held to confer authority to receive the cashpayment on the sale of the land being made. Thus if an auctioneer beverbally authorized to sell a lot at public sale upon certain terms, oneof which was, that ten per cent. of the purchase-money should be paidin cash on the day of sale, the auctioneer has authority to receive thiscash—payment ; as the court says: “His authority to receive the stipulated deposit cannot be questioned. He receives the deposit not merely as the agent of the seller. He is bound to keep it for the indemnityof the purchaser, until ‘the latter is enabled to look into the title proposed to be conveyed to him and decide on its sufiiciency, or until thelapse of time limited for the purpose in fixing the day for the paymentand security for the residue of the price.”So in the case of Yerby v. Grigsby, 9 Leigh, 387, a decree was rendered, which impliedly affirmed, that an agent, who had been appointedby a verbal authority to sell land, had under thecircumstances appearing in that case authority to receive the cash-payment. The court saysnot one word on this subject; and this inference is to be drawn onlyfrom the decree. The reporter too fails to state, what the circumstances or evidence was; in stating the law he merely says: “In theopinion of the court bel0w_ as of this court the evidence established.that Iohn Green was authorized by Charles to make such a contract aswas made with the complainant.” The contract which was made wasa sale of- two lots for $425.00, of which $250.00 was to be paid and,as the agreement states, was paid in cash to ]ohn Green. So far asI can see, there was no authority from anything appearing in this caseto justify the reporter in stating in the syllabus in this case, that sobroad a proposition was held in it

,

as that “when the owner of landsauthorized another to make a contract for the sale thereof, the authority of the agent to receive so much of the purchase-money, as is to bepaid in hand, is a necessary incident to the power to sell.” Nothing ofthe sort is said by the court; and no such broad proposition can possibly be inferred from the statement of the case or the decree entered.But be this as it may, there is certainly nothing in this or in anyother case, which I have seen, that gives any countenance to the idea,that a simple parol authority to sell land or, what is the same thing, tomake’ a contract of sale would impliedly authorize the agent makingthe sale to receive the deferred payments of the purchase-money. Suchimplication would be entirely unnecessary in order for the agent toexecute the authority conferred on him; and on every correct principle it could not be made. In such case it is clear, that no authorityto the agent to cpllect any deferred instalments of the purchase-moneycan be inferred.In this case not only was no authority given by Mann to Hunter tooollect these deferred payments; but the paper, which Mann signed,

4

272A

. THE AUT1-1ORl'l‘Y ' (Part 2

seems to me to go/much further than was necessary and clearly tonegative the idea that Hunter was to collect the deferred payments,if he sold the land. The language used is: “That should H. F. Hunter sell said land, I, \Villiam T. Mann, will endorse said sale and takemy interest in money or bonds as contracted by said H. Hunter." ltis perfectly obvious, that the bonds here referred to are the bonds forthe purchase-money of the land when sold. Mann stipulates here expressly, that his share of these bonds was to be given to him, whichis utterly inconsistent with the idea, that all these bonds were to be

collected by Hunter. But even had there been express authority givenby Mann to Hunter to collect the deferred payments of the purchasemoney, when the land was sold, yet he would‘ have had no authority

to collect it in the manner, in which he did, that is,

before it was due,

receiving for it according to the deposition of the purchaser, Robinson, cattle, horses, sheep and notes of third parties, which were pay

able to Robinson. An agent authorized to receive money or collect adebt can not receive another thing, as a house or a bond of a third person in discharge of a debt. See VVi'lkinson & Co. v. Holloway, 7 Leigh,284; Gullett v. Lewis, 3 Stew. 27; \Viley v. Mahood, 10 W'. Va. 221.These were cases of attorneys at law, who being authorized to collectdebts received payment in something else than money; but they show,

that the principle is just as applicable to any other agent as to attorneys at law. Indeed they are based on the ground, that the authorityof an attomey at law is the same as that of any other agent to collecta debt.

The collection too of a debt before it is due by an agent authorizedto collect a debt is generally a violation of his duty; and the person.who knowing his authority pays him money in this way, is responsible,

if the money is not paid to_ the principal. Parnther v. Gaitskell, 13East, 432. * * *

Decree reversed; cause remanded.“

3-1Bosseau v. O’Brien, 4 Biss. 395, Fed. Cas. No. 1.667 (1869), in which thecourt holds that authority to/an agent to sell real estate must be clear anddistinct, of such character that a fair and candid person must see withouthesitation that the authority-is given. An answer to an agent, “I will sell" onterms specified, gives the agent no authority to make a contract of sale, evenon those terms. By common law the power to convey must be under seal.Heath v. Nutter, 50 Me. 378 (1862), ante, p. 124. Cf‘. Linan v. Puno, 31 P. I.

259 (1915), with dissenting opinion.Authority to an agent to sell land does not per so confer authority to extend the time ot payment. Fullerton v. McLaughlin, 70 Hun, 568, 24 N. Y.Supp.,280 (1893). Nor to rescind and cancel the contract of sale, West EndHotel & Land C0. V. Crawford, 120 N. C. 347, 27 S. E. 31 (1897). Nor doesauthority to sell at a fixed price. or in a given manner, give any power to sellat any other price. National Iron Armor Co. v. Brunet, 19 N. J. Eq. 331(1868) ;, Dayton v. Buford, 18 Minn. 126 (Gil. 111) (1872). Nor in any othermanner. Rice v. Tavernier, 8 Minn. 248 (Gil. 214), 83 Am. Dec. 778 (1863).Though when the principal leaves discretion with the agent he will be bound,even though the agent sell for less than the amount he has suggested. Sprigg'sEx’rs v. Herman, 8 Mart. (N. S.) 510 (1828).Moreover, the authority must be exercised within a reasonable time. Mat

t _ 1

Ch. 1) NATURE AND nxrnxw 273

CARSTENS v. McREAVY.

(Supreme Court of Washington, 1890. 1 Wash. 359. 25 Pac. 471.)

Action to compel specific performance of an alleged agreement toconvey two lots in the city of Seattle.

I

STILES, J.” * * * The appellant was the owner of certain realproperty in the city of Seattle, and the court found that, at-a certaindate, agents named, who were real-estate agents in Seattle, “were theagents of defendant for the sale of the aforesaid real estate, and werethen and there duly authorized and empowered by the defendant, bywriting under the (lefendant’s hand, to make and negotiate_a__sale ofsaid real estate." The agents, thus authorized, executed and deliveredto the appellee a contract for the sale of the appellant's property, without his knowledge, and in his absence from the state, and received aportion of the purchase money. Appellant refused to recognize thecontract thus made, claiming that the authority by him given .to “sell”did not include the authority to execute a contract, or anything morethan to find a purchaser. This was the vital point in the case, uponwhich the court held with the appellee, and directed that the contractthus made be performed.The statute of frauds may be satisfied by, the execution of a contractfor the sale of lands by the hand of another person than the party tobe charged, if that person be thereunto lawfully authorized, and it iswell settled that such third person may be thus lawfully authorizedorally, by written direction not under seal, and even by a course ofconduct amounting to an estoppel. It, therefore, only remains to determine whether the ordinary real-estate agent or broker, authorized tosell land, is thereby empowered to enter into a contract binding upon

his principal, in an action 'for specific performance.“ A real-estateagent is a person who is, generally speaking, engaged in the business

of procuring purchases or sales of lands for third persons, upon acommission contingent upon success. He owes no affirmative duty tohis client, is not liable to him for negligence or failure, and may re

thews v. Sowie, 12 Neb. 398, 11 N. W. S57 (1882). It a considerable timeelapses, conditions may have chanzcd so as to raise a presumption that theprincipal no longer holds the agcnt out as having authority. Wasweylcr v.Martin, 78 Wis. 59. 46 .\'. W‘. 890 (1890).The agent, of course, cannot fix terms for his own advantage, even thoughno fraud is intended and no injury results. Finch v. Conrnde's Ex’rs, 154 Pa.326, 26 Atl. 368. 32 Wkly. Notes Cns. 196 (1893); Hill v. Helton. S0 Ala. 528.1 South. 340 (1886). _36 Part of the opinion IS omitted.30 See Duffy v. Hobson, 40 Cal. 240, 6 Am. Rep. 617 (1870); Armstrong v.Lowe. 76 Cal. 616, 18 Pac. 758 (1888); Scully v. Book, 3 Wash, 182, 28 Pac.556 (1.591) : Milne v. Kiel), 44 N. J. Eq. 378, 14 Atl. 6-16 (1888), containing a review of the cases.Gonb.Pa.& A. (2n En.)—18

dacvu. below

\

274_

THE AUTHORITY (Part 2

cede from his employment at will, without notice. On the other hand,courts almost unanimously unite in holding that in case of an ordinaryemployment to sell, when he has procured a party able and willing tobuy upon the terms demanded by his principal, and has notified himof the purchaser’s readiness to buy, the agent’s work is ended, andhe is entitled to his commission. It is not his duty to procure a contract, or to make one, and he is not in default if he fails to do either.Therefore, to our minds, it seems clear that, ordinarily, it is not withinthe contemplation of the owner and agent, where property of this character is placed in the hands of the latter for sale, that he shall, withoutconsultation with his client, execute a contract."We are aware that courts have held to this extent, basing their decisions upon a distinction between an authority to sell and an authori

ty to find a purchaser, and upon the well-known rule that an authority to an agent to do a thing is presumed to include all the necessaryand usual means of executing it with effect. But such holdings do notcommend themselves to our judgment, and as this is a new questionin this state, and we are satisfied that it is not the general practice ofagents to make such contracts, we do not hesitate to dissent from thedecisions above mentioned, especially as there is no lack of authorityfor the position we take. We cannot shut our eyes to the_obvious defect in the argument that authority to sell, in this instance, necessarilyimplies authority to execute a contract. A sale of land “executed witheffect” includes the execution of a deed, and the delivery of possession, neither of which the agent can do, unless his authority to sell issupplemented by the delivery of possession to him, and a power ofattorney to convey; so that he does not, although in possession of theauthority -to “sell,” have all the necessary means of executing that authority with final efi‘ect. He stops short somewhere, and, when weare inquiring where the probable and proper place of his stoppage is,the evils that would attend the extension of his actual authority, beyond the finding of a purchaser, furnish ample reasons for fixing hislimit there.”

37 Cf. post, pp. 276. 278.'.

A leading and well-reasoned, case in which the court held that an agentmay do such things as are most usual and proper to accomplish the thingintended to be done, including the giving of a deed with the usual warrantiesand covenants, and also the breaking up of a great tract of land into smallertracts such as would he salable. Rice v. Tavernier, 8 Minn. 248 (Gil. 214), 83Am. Dec. 778 (1863); Smith v. Allen, 86~Mo. 178 (1885). It is sometimes heldthat to justify the agent in executing a warranty deed, he must have broaderpower than a naked power to sell. Bronson v. Coflin, 118 Mass. 156 (1875);Id., 108 Mass. 175. 11 Am. Rep. 335 (1871). See, also, the leading case of 15Roy v. Beard, 8 How. 451, 12 L. Ed. 1151 (1850).As to the effect of a warranty deed. given under authority to execute aquitclaim deed. see Robinson v. Lowe. 50 W. Va. 75. 40 S. E. 454 (1901); Kanev. Sholars, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 154. 90 S. W. 937 (1905).38McCullough v. Hitchcock, 71 Conn. 401. 42 Atl. 81 (1899)- For an interesting discussion of the powers of factors and brokers, and of the consequent re

Gonn.Pr.& A.(2n En.)

Ch. 1) _NA'I.‘URE AND 1-:x'r1=:r<'1''

275

An agency of this kind may be created by the slightest form ofwords, without any writing, leaving it to litigation to determine whether the substance of the authority is “to sell,” or “to find a purchaser,”wherein the unscrupulous and dishonest agent would be at once arrayed as the principal witness against his client, with every advantagefrom some note, “made at the time,” of what the instruction was.Perjury would go at a premium in such cases, and the confiding andunlettered would be its victims. Scarcely any man, when listing hisproperty with a real-estate agent, stops to give details, either as to theproperty itself or as to the arrangements he desires to make, yet no onewould sell upon equal terms to a first-class business man, and to anhabitual drunkard, or well-known insolvent; and the ordinary owner would not sell at all to a person whose very occupancy would tingethe neighborhood with a bad repute. These are good reasons, and areprobably some of the reasons why custom and the law have made itnot necessary that real-estate agents should actually procure contractsin order to earn their compensation, and why, in this connection, thecommon understanding of the phrase “authority to sell” means onlyauthority to find a purchaser, whether the authority be given orally, orby written request.In considering this case, we have examined the numerous authorities cited by both sides, as well as many others, and find the positionwe take fully sustained by Morris v. Ruddy, 20 N. ]. Eq. 236; Milnev. Kleb, 44 N. _I. Eq. 378, 14 Atl. 646; Duffy v. Hobson, 40 Cal. 2-1-O,

6 Am. Rep. 617; Armstrong v. Lowe, 76 Cal. 616. 18 Pac. 758;Mechem, Ag. § 966; Warvelle, Vend. 213; 2 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law,p. 573, note 2

. The earlier cases in New York were to the same effect, notably Coleman v. Garrigues, 18 Barb. 60, and Glentworth v.Luther, 21 Barb. 145; ~but they were overthrown by Haydock v. Stow,40 N. Y. 363, without sufficient reason, as it seems to us. We notethat in nearly, if not all, the states where the counts at any time heldagents to sell real estate authorized to execute contracts of sale, especially in New York and Illinois, the legislatures very soon after amended the statutes of frauds, so as to require the agent's authority to contract to be in writing.Lyon v. Pollock, 99 U. S. 668, 25 L. Ed. 265, presents a state offacts not found, to any extent whatever, in the case at bar, and is

therefore not applicable, and the same may be remarked of Rutenbergv. Main, 47 Cal. 213. What a broker must do to “complete a sale"

is well defined in McGavock v. \Voodlief, 20 How. 227, 15 L. Ed. 884,thus: “The broker must complete the sale; that is, he must find a

purchaser in a situation, and ready and willing, to complete the purchase on the terms agreed on, before he is entitled to his commission.”Per contra, if the broker has “completed the sale" so as to be entitled

strictions of the powers of real estate brokers, see Davis v. Gordon, 87 Va.559, 13 S. E. 35 (1891).

'27 6 'rn1;: AUTHORITY (Part 2

to his commissions, by finding a purchaser, without a contract, his dutyis thereby performed, and his authority exhausted.The judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the action.dismissed; costs to appellants. ii

' LYON v. POLLOCK.(Supreme Court of the United States, 1878. 99 U. S. 668, 25 L. Ed. 265.)

Action in equity to compel conveyance by Lyon of land sold to Pollock by Lyon's agent. Lyon, who was a Union man during the Civil1/Var, had left Texas.

f

Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion ofthe court. .

i

This case turns upon the construction given to the letter of Lyonto Paschal, of the 24th of August, 1865. That letter clearly did notauthorize the execution of a conveyance by Paschal in the name ofLyon to the purchaser. Its insufiiciency in that respect was authoritatively determined in the action at law for the lands; the instrumentexecuted by Paschal as the deed of Lyon being held inoperative topass the legal title. The question now is, was the letter sufiicient toauthorize a contract for the sale of the lots? To determine this, andgive full effect to the language of the writer, we must place ourselvesin his position, so as to read it

,

as it were, with his eyes and mind. Itappears from his answer, as well as his testimony, that he was in greatdanger of personal violence in San Antonio, shortly after the commencement of the rebellion, owing to his avowed hostility to secession,or at least that he thought he was in such danger. He apprehendedthat his life was menaced, and was in consequence induced to flee thecountry. He possessed at the time a large amount of property, realand personal, in San Antonio. This he confided to the care of hispartner, Bennett, to whom he gave a power of attorney, authorizinghim to take charge of and control the same, and sell it for whateverconsideration and upon such terms as he might judge best, and executeall proper instruments of transfer; and also to collect and receipt fordebts due to him. Bennett took possession of Lyon’s property andmanaged it until ]uly, 1865, when he transferred it

,

with the businessand papers in his hands, to Paschal, and at once informed Lyon byletter of the transfer. It was under these circumstances that the letterof Lyon to Paschal, which is the subject of consideration, was written.Its language is: “I wish you to manage [my property] as you wouldwith your own. If a good opportunity offers to sell every thing I

have, I would be glad to sell. It may be parties will come into SanAntonio who will be glad to purchase my gas stock and real estate.”Situated as Lyon then was, a fugitive from the state, it could hardlyhave been intended by him that if propositions to purchase his proper

Ch. 1) NATURE AND EX'l‘E.\"1‘ 277

ty or any part of it were made to Paschal, they were to be communicated to him, and to await his approval before being accepted. He wasat the time at Monterey, in Mexico; and communication by water between that place and San Antonio was infrequent and uncertain; andhe states himself that it was impossible to send letters by Matamoras,

as the road was blockaded. Writing under these circumstances, wethink it clear that he intended by his language, what the words naturally convey, that if an opportunity to sell his property presented itselfto Paschal, he should avail himself of it and close a contract for itssale.His subsequent conduct shows, or at least tends to show, that suchwas his own construction of the letter, and that he approved, or at leastacquiesced in, the disposition made of his property. He must havebeen aware, from the laws of the state, which he is presumed to haveknown, that taxes were leviable upon his property, and that unless theywere paid the property would be sold for their payment; yet he confessedly took no steps from 1865 to 1873 to meet them, and thus prevent a forced sale of his property; a course perfectly natural if it beconceded that the property was in charge of an agent. with power tomanage and sell it as his judgment might dictate. His indifi‘eren_ce,also, after rumors reached him that a sale of his property had beenmade by Paschal in 1867, can scarcely be explained upon any other

hypothesis. _The same may be said of his inattention to the paymentof the assessments upon his stock in the San Antonio Gas Company, ofwhich he had received intimations. From the time Paschal took chargeof his property, in 1865 to 1873, a period of eight years, he certainlymanifested, if his own story be accepted, a most extraordinary wantof interest in regard to his real property, of great value, situated inan unfriendly community, subject to taxation, and liable to be sold ifthe taxes were not promptly paid; and also in regard to his personalproperty, consisting of shares in the San Antonio Gas Company, ofgreat value, liable to assessments, and to sale if the assessments werenot paid when due. It is much more reasonable to suppose that heknew of the sales made of the real property and of the assessments onthe shares, and that he was undisturbed by the reports which reachedhim, because he considered that the sales were made and the assessments paid from the proceeds, by his authorized attorney.The testimony of Bennett tends also to corroborate this view. Hestates that he knew from his correspondence with Lyon_ that he treatedPaschal as his agent for the sale of his property. The conduct of Lyon.as expressive almost as any language which he could use, cannot, ofcourse, change the construction to be given to the words contained inhis letter to Paschal, but it tends to strengthen the conclusion as to theintention of the writer.Holding the letter to confer sufficient authority to contract for thesale of Lyon's real property in San Antonio, there can be no doubtof the right of the complainants to the relief prayed. The deed exe

I

I

278 THE AUTHORITY (Part 2

cuted to them by Paschal in the name of Lyon, though invalid as aconveyance, is good as a contract for the sale of the property described in it; and is sufficient, therefore, to sustain the prayer of thebill for a decree directing Lyon to make a conveyance to them andenjoining the enforcement of the judgment at law.”Decree afiirmed.

'

VALENTINE v. PIPER.(Supreme Judicial Court ot Massachusetts, 1839. 22 Pick. 85, 33 Am. Dec. 715.)

Writ of entry, wherein was demanded the premises appurtenantto an ancient wharf. Demandants relied on a deed, executed by Geo.Sullivan as attorney of Andrew Price, a clergyman in England, toLawson Valentine, father of the demandants. .

SHAW, C. ]."° The present case comes before the Court upon amotion of the defendant to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial,on the grounds of misdirection, and mistake of law in the admissionof evidence, and as a verdict against evidence.

i-

_The action was brought by the heirs of Lawson Valentine, to recover a tract of flats, over which the sea ebbs and flows, as appurtenant to, and parcel of a tract of land, bounded on salt \vater, and theplaintifls began by showing a title to the upland, in respect to whichthis tract of flats was claimed. The land consisted of a wharf, lyingnear the bottom of Summer street, bounding on Boston harbour,known at different periods, as Valentine's wharf, Price's wharf andBull’s wharf. Valentine claimed under several persons of the nameof Price.The first exception is to an instrument, purporting to be a letterof attorney from Andrew Price to George Sullivan. Evidence wasgiven, tending to show, that Andrew Price, at the time of making theinstrument, and for many years previous, had resided in England, andthe instrument purported to have been executed there. Under thesecircumstances, secondary evidence was ofiered to prove the executionof the instrument, which was objected to, without calling the attestingwitnesses, or proving that they were not within the jurisdiction of thecourt, but the objection was overruled, and the secondary evidenceadmitted. And the Court are of opinion. that this was correct. * * *

Some objection was taken to the legal effect of this instrument.It purported to authorize the attorney tg make sale of the real estate

89 Authority as sell on special terms authorized an agent to make an executory contract to convey, but not on different terms. Jackson v. Badger,35 Minn. 52, 26 N. W. 908 (1886). The power must be interpreted with reference to the subject-matter and the circumstances under which the agentacts. Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 78 (Gil. 58) 77 Am. Dec. 539 (1861); Blssell v.Terry, 69 Ill. 184 (1873). Authority to do with land as “it it was your own"gives no authority to sell or lease. Ward v. Thrustin, 40 Ohio St. 347 (1883).4° Part of the opinion is omitted.

Ch. 1) NATURE AND mxrmwr 279

of the constituent, as therein described, but there were no expresswords authorizing the attorney to execute a deed or deeds. But theCourt are of opinion, that the instrument is not open to this exception. Vl/here the term “sale” is used in its ordinary sense, and thegeneral tenor and efi'ect of the instrument is

,

to confer on the attorneya power to dispose of real estate, the authority to execute the properinstruments required by law, to carry such sale into effect, is neces

sarily incident. It is in pursuance of a general maxim, that an authority to accomplish a definite end, carries with it an authority, sofar as the constituent can confer it

,

to execute the usual, legal and

appropriate measures proper to accomplish the object proposed. Apower of attorney might be so drawn as to authorize the attorney tomake sale of an estate, where it might be apparent that it was theintention of the constituent to authorize the attorney to negotiate for

a sale, leaving it to the constituent afterwards to ratify it and to execute deeds. Should it appear, either from the restricted words used,or from the tenor of the whole instrument, that such was the intent,

it ought to be construed as conferring such a restricted power only.In the present case, we think it was the intent of the constituent toconfer on the attorney an authority to transfer the estate.“ * * *

Judgment upon the verdict for demandants.

CLAFLIN v. CONTINENTAL JERSEY WORKS.

(Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890. 85 Ga. 27, 11 S. E. 721.)

One '\/Veisbein, a merchant in Savannah, by fraudulent representations as fo his solvency, secured large amounts of goods from Claflin

& Co. and Iaflray & Co. By a heavy sale he secured $60,000 in cash,with which he absconded. He left his manager, Lichtenstein, in chargeunder a written power of attorney to manage the business, and makecollections, pay bills, and do any acts necessary and proper for carrying on the business, as fully as the principal might do if personallypresent. Claflin & Co. and Iafiray & Co. demanding pay, and Lichtenstein having no money, he offered to pay in goods, and turned over tothem goods of sufficient amount to settle their accounts, a large partof such goods being the same originally purchased from said firms and

41 Accord: Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330, 26 N. W. 9, 57 Am. Rep.59 (1885). While power to sell lands must be strictly construed, it should nothe so construed as to defeat the intention of the parties. Hcmstreet v. Burdick, 90 Ill. 444 (1878). The distinction between a power to contract to conveyand a power to convey is brought out in Hunter v. Sacramento Valley BeetSugar C0. (C. C.) 11 Fed. 15, 7 Sawy. 498 (1882).

280 THE AUTHORITY'

(Part 2

still unpaid for. The Continental VVorks and other creditors attackedthis conveyance as a fraud upon the rest of the creditors, and outsidethe scope of Lichtenstein’s authority. Appeal from a verdict and decree against defendants.SIMMONS, J.“ The errors assigned in the fifth to eighteenth (inclusive) grounds of the motion for a new trial go to the refusal of thecourt to give in charge to the jury certain principles of the law ofagency which bear upon the question of the extent of Lichtenstein'sauthority. The requests may embody sound law, but it is immaterialwhether they do or not. Where an agent's authority is conferred anddefined in writing, the scope or extent of such authority is a questionfor determination by the court. Mechem, Ag. § 104 ; 1 Thomp.Trials, § 1370; Berwick v. Horsfall, 29 Law ]. C. P. 193; Dobbins v.Manufacturing Co., 75 Ga. 238, 243; Pollock v. Cohen, 32 Ohio St.514. As said by this court in the case above cited (page 243): “Thatit was the duty of the court to construe both the charter and the letterof attorney, and to determine the extent of power conferred by both

and each of them upon the agent, we’ think, is a plain proposition.Taken alone, and without proof of other circumstances to which itwas necessary to resort to clear ambiguities or to explain doubtful intention, there was nothing for the jury to find. The-question waspurely and simply one of law, to which it was the exclusive right andduty of the judge to respond.”In requesting charges upon the extent and nature of a generalagency, there seems to have been an attempt by the plaintiffs in errorto enlarge the authority of Lichtenstein beyond the limits of his power,or at least to establish the construction that the instrument created a

general agency. If there was any such effort, the court did not errin defeating it. It is not allowable, by the adduction of extrinsic oralevidence, to add to the powers expressly given in the writing. Theauthority must be proved by the instrument itself. Neal v. Patten, 40

Ga. 363. The very purpose of a power of attorney" is to prescribe andpublish the limits within which the agent shall act, so as not to leavehim‘ to the uncertainty of memory, and those who deal with him tothe‘ risk of misrepresentation or misconception, as to the extent of hisauthority. To confer express authority is to withhold implied authority. There can be no parol enlargement of a written authority.VV'hart. Ag. § 225; Mechem, Ag. § 306; Reese v. Medlock, 27 Tex.120, 84 Am. Dec. 611; Batty v. Carswell, 1 Amer. Lead. Cas. 687,notes; Pollock v. Cohen. 32 Ohio St. 514.Besides. the power of attorney was relied upon throughout the wholetransaction. The plaintiffs in error believed Lichtenstein’s acts to bewithin the letter of his authority, having taken the advice of counsel in'reference thereto, so that theycannot claim to have been misled by

42 The statement of facts is abridged and part of the opinion is omitted.

\

_ ._|_

Q

Ch. 1) NATURE asp nxrawr 281

any appearance of authority other than that which the writinggivesfs =u * *

The court found the act of Lichtenstein to be outside his authority,but the case was reversed on other grounds.

'

DUNWOODY v. SAUNDERS.(Supreme Court of Florida, 1905. 50 Fla. 202, 39 South. 965.)

COCKRELL, J.“ The plaintiffs in error, as plaintifis below, sued forthe loss and hire of a barge or lighter. The declaration consistedof three counts—the first an ordinary count in bailment for the lossthrough the alleged negligence of a bailee for hire; the second countalleged a special contract whereby the bailee became an insurer ofthe barge; and the third count was for the rental value of the lighterbetween the hiring and the loss. There was verdict and judgment onthe last count alone, and to the judgment the plaintiffs sued out this

writ of error.No question is raised here on the pleadings, all assignments of error therein being expressly abandoned, and the only assignments, inview of the disposition of the case, that we shall consider, are thosebased upon certain instructions given, modified, or refused.

The barge was hired for the purpose of being towed from Pensacolato St. Andrews Bay and there receive on board a cargo of lumber,when it was to be towed back with such cargo to Pensacola by thedefendant’s tugboat, and there was evidence that the owners of thebarge placed thereon a master, with direction to see to it that thebarge was loaded in a certain way, and that this manner of loadingcaused its loss. * * *

The court erred in giving this charge: “If you find that iiyer hadauthority from the defendant to hire the barge Brainard for the tripfrom Pensacola to St. Andrews and return, yet the existence of suchpower would not authorize him to bind the defendant by a contractthat the barge, during the possession of her under such hiring, shouldbe at the risk of the defendant." The defendant in error asserts thatthis instruction “was intended to present boldly to the jury the assertion that there was no evidence to show that Hyer had the power, orthat the plaintiffs had the right to rely on his having the power, to

48 Sec. also. Savage v. Pelton, 1 Colo. App. 148, 27 Pac. 948 (1891). Onewho deals with an agent acting under a written authority is to be regardedas dealing with the power before him, and must at his peril know that theact of the agent is one that is authorized by the power. Stainback v. Read,11 Grat. 281, 62 Am. Dec. 648 (1854); Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wcnd. 260(1840): Cnmmins v. Beaumont, 68 Ala. 204 (1880), ante, p. 291; Quay v. Presidio & Ferries Co., 82 Cal. 1, 22 Pac. 925 (1889).44 Part of the opinion is omitted.

282 THE AUTHORITY (Part 2

bind the defendant by a contract that the barge during bailment shouldbe at defendant’s risk.” Vi/'e shall accept this interpretation of thecharge.There was evidence from which we can legitimately infer that Hyer,who alone participated in the transaction on behalf of the bailee, wasat the time acting as his general agent in the barge and towboat busi

ness, though Saunders had other lines of business not represented byHyer, and, further, that subsequent to the loss of the barge whenHyer was charged with having made the contract, Saunders, thoughpresent, did not deny his authority. There was no proof of custom orusage or previous dealings, or that the bailors had knowledge of anylimitations upon the agent’s apparent authority. VVhile a generalagent’s authority is confined to such transactions and concerns as areincident and appurtenant to the business of his principal, and to thatbranch of his business that is intrusted to his care, yet within theselimits the principal is bound. Mechem on Agency, §§ 286, 287.' The same authority says: “\V here the agent is authorized to transact all the principal’s business of a certain kind, the very breadth ofthe employment and variety of the duties to be performed necessarilyinvolve more or less of discretion and choice of methods, and renderimpracticable, if not impossible. much of particularity or precision,either as to the exact means and method to be employed, or as to thescope or extent of the authority itself. \\/here so little is expressed,more may well be implied. The fact of such an authority, of itself,presupposes a general confidence bestowed upon the agent, and a

general committal to his discretion and judgment of all beyond theessential objects to be attained and the outlines of the course to bepursued. It may not unreasonably be presumed, where nothing isindicated to the contrary, that such an agent possesses those powerswhich are commensurate with his undertaking, and which are usuallyand properly exercised by other similar agents under like circum~stances. This presumption may well be and is constantly relied uponby persons dealing with such agents, and so reasonable. proper, andnecessary is this reliance, that it may justly be required that, if theprincipal would impose unusual restrictions upon the authority of suchan agent, he should make .them known to persons who may have occasion to deal with the agent.” 4‘

45 Some independent judgment on the part of the agent is usually neces»sary. Hilliard v. Weeks. 173 Mass. 304. 53 N. E. 818 (1899). This is especiallytrue where the agent's duties are not merely ministerial, capable of being defined and executed strictly, but involve large powers and wide discretion.Howard v. Baillie, 2 H. Bl. 618 (1796). The principal, by his declarations orconduct, may have justified the opinion that he had in fact given to the agentmore extensive powers than those in the writing. Rawson v. Curtiss. 19 Ill.456 (1858); Merchants’ Ins. Co. v. New Mexico Lumber Co., 10 Colo. App.223, 51 Pac. 174 (1897). A written power may be expanded by the declarations or acts of the principal. Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit 6: Ins. Co.v. Seventh Nat. Bank (D. C.) 6 Fed. 114 (1881). Ct‘. Mechanics’ Bank v.Schaumburg, 38 M0. 228 (1866). When the appointment has been expressly

Ch. 1) NATURE AND sxrnnr 283

I

For the purpose of conducting this business over which he had general charge, should the circumstances arise, rendering such a coursenecessary, we see no limitation upon his power from the facts disclosedhere, to buy a barge outright and bind his principal thereby. Muchless are there limitations upon his power to buy the barge for thelimited time required for the performance of this contract, since, asit may be gathered from the evidence, these were the only terms uponwhich he could secure it.The question of the scope of the authority of an agent is generallyone of fact, or of mixed law and fact, and therefore, under our system,that prohibits charges upon the facts, such question is best left to thedetermination of a jury under general instructions for its guidance.Other and different facts may be evidenced on another trial, and werefrain therefore from any further expression of our views.It is unnecessary to discuss the form or effect of the verdict.For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed at the cost ofthe defendant in error and a new trial awarded.

_.@-__.

REESE v. MEDLOCK.(Supreme Court oi! Texas, 1863. 27 Tex. 120, 84 Am. Dec. 611.)

Action for the recovery of land and the cancellation of a deed executed by one Powers as agent for Reese, deceased, under a powerof attorney authorizing him “to sell, transfer and convey all landsthat I may have in the said state of Texas.” Powers exchanged theland for a slave, and sold the slave for $875, but there was no evidencethat this money came into the hands of Reese, or that he was everinformed of the conveyance to Medlock. Evidence was admitted of acustom to make such an exchange of land, but the jury was instructedto disregard this evidence. Verdict for defendant. ,

Mooma, J.“ It is a well settled general principle that, when anagency is created and conferred by a written instrument, the natureand extent of the authority given by it must be ascertained from theinstrument itself, and cannot be enlarged by parol evidence of theusage of other agents in like cases, for that would be to contradict orvary the terms of the written instrument. There may, however, besome qualifications and limitations properly belonging to this generalrule, whereby, especially in cases of general or implied agencies, theusages of a particular trade or business, or of a particular class ofpersons, are properly admissible, not, indeed, for the purpose of enlarging the powers of the agents employed therein, but for the means

made in writing, some item is almost inevitably omitted in drawing theinstrument. Adams Express Co. v. Byers (Ind.) 95 N. E. 513 (1911), quoting31 Cyc. 1355.45 The statement of facts is abridged and part of the opinion is omitted.

284 THE AUTHORITY (Part 2

of interpreting and rightly understanding those powers which areactually given. The power of attorney under which the agent soldthe land in controversy to the defendant, Medlock, did not authorizehim to barter or exchange it for other property. It cannot surely beseriously insisted that there has become such a general and uniformcustom or usage of trade, by agents for the sale of land in this state,in contravention to the legal import of the instrument under whichthey derive their authority, as to overturn and abrogate the well established rules of legal construction, by which the courts would otherwise be governed. If, however, such was the fact, the testimony offered by the defendant falls far short of justifying the application inthis case of such an exception to the general rule to which referencehas been made, and the court did not err in excluding it from the,jury. * * *'

For error in instructions as to ratification, reversed and remanded.“iiiROBERTS v. MATTHEWS.

(High Court of Chancery, 1682. 1 Vernon, 150.)

The case was, the defendant Matthews employed one Smith ascrivener to place out £50. for him at interest, which the scrivenerdid to the plaintiff, and took the plaintiff's bond for it in the defendant’s name; and about three months afterwards delivered the bondto the defendant. Plaintiff Roberts all along paid his interest tothe scrivener, and about five years after the entering into this bond,the scrivener calling upon him for the principal, he paid £30 of it,and the scrivener not having the bond in his custody, gave the plaintiff a receipt for £30. received in part for the use of the defendantMatthews. .

i

Adjudged this was a void payment; for the bond being in thecustody of the defendant Matthe\vs, and not in the scrivener’s, theplaintiff ought to have seen his money indorsed on the bond; andthough this alone were enough to make it an ill payment, yet thiscase was the stronger; for that the plaintiff was not ignorant whosemoney it was; the receipt he took for the payment of the £30. beingfor the use of the defendant. And many precedents were cited tothe same purpose.

47 Quoted and applied in Henry v. Lane, 128 Fed. 243, 62 C, C. A, 6251As to the extent of express and implied authority, see Gr-e_:or_v v. Loose,19 Wash. 599, 54 Pac. 33 (1898), ante, p. 63; Moyle v. Congregational Soeiety, 16 Utah, 69, 50 Pac. 806 (1897), ante, p. 104, post, p. 740; Blum v.Robertson, 2-1 Cal. 128-141; Hirshfield v. Waldron, 5-1Mich. 649, 20 N. W. 628. _As to the limits of implied power, see, also, Gates Iron Works v. DenverEngineering Works, ante, p. 252.

_ i _ f _ _____ _ _.-t

Ch. 1) NATURE AND r:x'rax'r 285

MARTYN v. KINGSLEY.(High Court of Chancery, 1702. Finch, Precedents in Chancery, 209.)

In this case a difference was made, where a man trusts his scrivener(who puts out money for him) with the custody of his bond, andwhere with the custody of his mortgage; in the first case, if he receive the money, ‘and delivers up the bond, this shall bar the obligee;not so in the case of a mortgage, because a legal estate is vested, whichcannot be divested without assignment.

WOLSTENHOLM v. DAVIES.(High Court of Chancery, 1705. 2 Freeman, Ch. 289, 2 Eq. Cas. 709.)

The plaintiff having borrowed £100. of the defendant’s testatorupon bond, which was procured by Williams, a scrivener in the OldBailey; when the bond was sealed, it was delivered to the obligee;the plaintiff paid several years interest to V\/illiams, the scrivener,and £50., part of the principal money, which the scrivener paid tothe obligee, but the last £50. of the principal money being paid to thescrivener, he broke before he paid it to the obligee; and the questionwas, whether Sir Jo. W. the plaintiff was to lose the money, or theobligee? And the Master of the Rolls said, that it was the constantrule of this court, that if the party, to whom the security was made,trusted his security in the hands of the scrivener, that payment tothe scrivener was good payment, but if he took the security into hisown keeping, payment to the scrivener would not be good payment,unless it could be proved that the scrivener had authority from the

party to receive it; and although in this case the scrivener had received the intcrest and part~of the principal, and paid it to the obligee,

yet that did not imply that he had any authority to receive it; butas long as he paid it over, all was well, and any one else might havecarried to the party as well as he; and the plaintiff not proving thatthe scrivener had any authority from the obligee to receive. he wasforced to pay the last £50. again, although the Master of the Rollsdeclared that he thought it a very hard case.

/\

I

286 K THE AUTHORITY (Part 2

b,,,,\K

i-1-4

I

CURTIS v. DROUGHT.“

_ (High Court of Chancery’ in Ireland, 1828. 1 Molloy, 487.)

D. Robert, the common agent of Margaret Bradford and of Thos.Drought, negotiated a loan of £300. by the former to the latter, takingand delivering to Miss Bradford a bond therefor. Drought regularlypaid the interest, and finally the principal, to Robert. In 1816 shedied and her executor sues on the bond.HART, LORD CHA:~1cELLoR.'“’ * * * As to the acquittance ofthe debtor by the agent, if one employs an agent to lend money, andtake a security which he delivers to his principal, he has no authorityto discharge the debfor.No'one would be safe if an attorney who was employed to take asecurity for money could be permitted to say he had received backthe amount and discharged the debtor. There has often been a question touching the extent of the authority of an agent who has beenpermitted to hold the security in his hands, whether he had power tocancel the security and discharge the debt; and there are some casesof great nicety upon that. Martyn v. Kingsley, Pre. Ch. 209, ante,p. 285_ But it has never been heard of when the owner has had theprecaution to take the instrument containing the evidence of the debtinto his own custody, that the agent then had authority to receive theamount and give a valid acquittance. * * *

___i.\

‘JOY v. VANCE.

(Supreme Court of Michigan, 1895. 10-1 Mich. 97, 62 N. W. 140.)

Bill to foreclose a mortgage. Defense payment. Complainantspurchased the mortgage and four accompanying notes, and as the interest notes fell due, sent them to the Michigan Mortgage Companyfor collection. The Vance mortgage became due February 28, 1891.March 11, 1892, Vance paid the mortgage, taking a receipt of theMichigan Mortgage Company in full. The latter failed to pay it tocomplainant and soon after failed.HOOKER, '].“°

* * * The case is reduced, therefore, to thesingle question of the authority of the Michigan Mortgage Companyto receive the money upon the mortgage. Unless .we are to say thatthe collection of the interest through this company, from time to time,constituted it an agent for the collection of subsequent installments ofinterest and the principal, we cannot deny complainants the relief

43 Accord: Whitlock v. Walthnrn. 1 Salkeld, 157 (1708).49 Part of the opinion is omitted.WPart 01 the opinion is omitted.

Ch. 1) NATURE AND nxrnnr 287

\

sought.“ Vance admits he paid the interest to the company withouttaking the trouble to ascertain whether they had the mortgage or whoowned it. When he paid the mortgage, he was satisfied with the statement that the mortgage was mislaid, although he received a receiptwhich indicated that it did not belong to the company to whom he waspaying it. It was perhaps the natural thing for him to pay it, in reliance upon the statement of these men with whom he was acquainted and in whom he had confidence; but his rights must depend upontheir authority to receive the money, not upon his confidence in them.Defendants’ counsel claim that there was a general authority to col

lect from the fact that Mr. Cutcheon was in the habit of having hiscompany make collections for his clients, including this’ estate forwhich he had purchased several mortgages from the company._ Theauthority of the company does not depend upon the amount of business done by it for the com'plainants, but upon the character and extent of the employment, as evidenced by the express authority conferred and the method of their dealing with it. Campbell v. Sherman,49 Mich. 536, 14 N. W. 484. So far as shown, Mr. Cutcheon retainedthe custody of his papers, sending from time to time specific authority and directions for the performance of particular and designatedacts. \Ve search the .record in vain for evidence that he gave a general authority to collect mortgages purchased or held by him. Hefound them profitable business acquaintances, for they had mortgageswhich he wished to buy; but he appears to have carefully managedthe collections in a way which enabled him to keep track of them,

51As to the implied authority of an agent authorized to collect the interest,to receive the principal also, see Security Co. v. Grayheal, &3 Iowa, 543, 52N. VV. 497, 39 Am. St. Rep. 311 (1892); Doubleday v. Kress, 50 N. Y. 410, 10Am. Rep. 502 (1872); \Vilson v. Campbell. 110 Mich. 580, GS N. W. 278, 35L. R. A. 544 (1896); White v. Madigan, 78 Minn. 286, 80 N. W. 1125 (1899).‘When one bond is left with the agent and the others are not in his possession, see Ward v. Smith, 7 Wall. 447, 19 L. Ed. 207 (1869). And when thethird person makes various payments he will be protected as to paymentsmade while the securities are in the agent’s possession, but not as to payments made after the securities have left the hands of the agent. Crane v.Gruenewald, 120 N. Y. 274, 24 N. E. 456, 17 Am. St. Rep. 6-13 (1890). When theprincipal withdraws the instruments evidencing the debt, that is an impliedrevocation of the authority of the agent. Bloomer v. Dau, 122 Mich. 522, 81N. W. 331 (1899). And it has even been held that the authority is revoked whenthe agent wrongfully assigns'the debt to another party. Crane v. Gruenewald, upra. Neither mere authority to make a loan, Fortune v. Stockton,182 Ill. 454, 55 N. E. 367 (1899); Antioch College v. Carroll, 11 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 220 (1890); nor mere possession of the securities by an agent who hashad no other connection with the loan, gives implied authority to collect thedebt, Doubleday v. Kress, 50 N. Y. 410, 10 Am. Rep. 502 (1872) ; Union Cent. L.Ins. v. Jones. 35 Ohio St. 351 (1880); McMahon v. Germ. Am. Nat. Bk., 111Minn. 313, 127 N. W. 7

,

29 L R. A. (N. S.) 67 (1910). Both conditions mustconcur. Central Trust Co. v. Folsom, 167 N. Y. 285, 60 N. E. 599 (1901). Themere fact that a note is payable at the agent's otiice amounts to a designationof the place of payment, but not of the person authorized to receive it.Klindt v. Higgins, 95 Iowa. 529. 64 N. W. 414 (1895); Caldwell v. Evans, 5

Bush, 380, 96 Am. Dec. 358 (1869); Ward v. Smith, 7 Wall. 447, 19 L. Ed. 207(1869); Wood v. Merchant's Savings Loan & Trust Co., 41 111. 267 (1866).

288 THE AU'1‘l{ORI'1‘Y (Part 2

as a prudent lawyer should for clients who confide their business tohim. He had a right to suppose that the mortgagor would not paynotes or mortgage without receiving them, and by keeping them in hisown hands he interposed the only practicable obstacle to the 'perpetrati0nof a fraud by the mortgage company. Had the mortgagor been ascareful to ascertain the authority of the company as the complainantswere to restrict it

,

no one would have sufiered. /As it is, the loss should

fall upon him, and not upon the complainants, who are in no way responsible for it.The decree of the circuit court must be reversed, and one enteredhere for the complainants, as prayed in the bill, with costs of bothcourts.“

' I

EXCHANGE BANK v. THROWER.(Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903. 118 Ga. 433, 45 S. E. 316.)

Drafts to one Prince were indorsed “]as. T. Prince, Manager, byKelly H. Brinsfield, Cashier.” Defendant, Thrower, de'posited thesechecks in the bank to his credit. The pliaintifi‘ bank refunded to Princethe amounts of the checks on his agreement to indemnify if they failed to recover from Thrower. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.“LAMAR, _T

. Authority to borrow money is among the most dangerouspowers which a principal can confer upon an agent. \/Vhoever lendsto one claiming the right to make or indorse negotiable paper in thename of another does so in the face of all the danger signals of busi-"ness. He need not lend or discount until assured beyond doubt thatthe principal has in fact appointed an agent who by the stroke of a

52 See, also, ante, p. 230, and Harrison Nat. Bank of Cadiz, Ohio, v. Austin,65 Neb. 632, 91 N. W. 540, 59 L. R. A. 294, 101 Am. St. Rep. 639 (1902).The various “Kelly Cases" in Minnesota well illustrate all the variations, ofthe agent's powers. See Springfield Sav. Bank v. Kjaer, 82 Minn. 180, 84N. W. 752 (1901), and the cases there discriminated; Thornton v. Lawther,169 Ill. 228, 48 N. E. 412 (1897), a case of. remarkable confidence reposed inthe agent. '

Possession of the securities, or the want of it, while a fact of great signiflcance, is not in every case essential to determine implied power, or thelack of it, to collect the debt. Union Trust C0. v. McKeon, 76 Conn. 508, 57Atl. 109 (1904).When the third person attempts to show ostensible authority in the agentto collect, notwithstanding the securities are not in his possession, the burden of proof is on such third person, and it the evidence is such that diflferentminds might reasonably draw diflerent conclusions therefrom, then it is a

question for the jury. Reid v. Kellogg, 8 S. D. 596, 67 N. W. 687 (1896). Seealso, Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130, 23 Am. Rep. 157 (1877), in which there wascollection before maturity, and Tappan v. Morseman, 18 Iowa, 499 (1865).53 The statement of facts is abridged.

Ch. 1) NATURE AND EXTENT ,_» 289

pen may wipe out his present fortune, and bind his future earnings.The very nature of the act is a warning, and if the lender parts with hismoney, he does so at his own peril. If the power was not in iact,conferred, he must bear the loss occasioned by his own folly. A powerso perilous is not to be implied from acts which in other matters lesshazardous might create an agency. It must be conferred in expressterms, or be necessarily and inevitably inferable from the very natureof the agency actually created.“ So strict is the rule that it will not bepresumed even from an appointment of one as general agent, unlessthe character of the business or the duties of the agent are of such anature that he was bound to borrow in order to carry out his instructions and the duties of the ofiice. Civ. Code, §§ 3004, 3021; Dobbinsv. Etowah Mfg. Co., 75 Ga. 238; Mechem on Agency, § 536; Tappanv. Bailey, 4 Metc. 536; Iackson Co. v. Com. Nat. Bk., 199 Ill. 151,65 N. E. 136, 59 L. R. A. 657, 93 Am. St. Rep. 113; Doubleday v.Kress, SO N. Y. 410, 10 Am. Rep. 502.\Nhile the agent here was given the rather high title of “cashier,”that, of itself, did not clothe him with the powers which might havebeen exercised by an officer bearing that title if employed by a bank.In view of the reluctance with which the law presumes the existenceof the power to borrow, this title will be considered to indicate thathe was a cash keeper, rather than a cash borrower. Nor will thefact that he was authorized to fill out the blank, and indorse draftswith a rubber stamp reading, “Pay to the order of the Third NationalBank for deposit. James T. Prince, Manager, by , Cashier,"be treated as authority to indorse in blank. On the contrary, thecharacter of the stamp itself indicated that the principal only authorized a restricted indorsement for the mere purpose of allowingthe bank, rather than the agent, to collect. It does not import a general authority to indorse, nor does possession of the draft indicate thatthe agent had the right to discount the draft or collect the proceeds.“

54 As to form of authority to make negotiable paper, and whether it must beexpress, see Fountain v. Bookstaver, 141 Ill. 461, 31 N. E. 17 (18%); Gambrillv, Brown Hotel Co., 11 Colo. App. 529, 54 Pac. 1025 (1898); Whitten v. Bankof Flneastle, 100 Va. 546, 42 S. E. 309 (1%); Pansing v. Warner, 43 Wash.531, so Pac. 667 (1900)., i '

55Accord: Paige v. Stone, 10 Metc. (Mass) 160, 43 Am. Dec. 420 (184Q, inwhich it is said that to facilitate note making, and thus aifect the interestand estates oi! third persons to an indefinite amount. is not within the object and intent of the law in regulating the common duties of the agent. Sinclair 8: C0. v. Goodell, 93 Ill. App. 592 (1900). Evidence that the agent had indorsed in the principal’s name thirty-three checks is no proof of his authorityunless the principal knows of it. Sewunee Mining Co. v. McCall, 3 Ilead, 619(1859), denying the authority of an agent to accept a bill, even in an extraordinary emergcncy not amounting to an overruling necessity.As to implied power of general manager of a business to make or indorsenegotiable paper, see Connell v. McLouglilin, 28 Or. 23, 42 Pac. 218 (1993);N. Y. Iron Mine v. Negaunee Bank, 39 Mich. 644 (1878); Bank v. Ohio ValleyFurniture Co., 57 W. Va. 625, 50 S. E. 880, 70 L. R. A. 312 (1905) ante, p. 247;Bank of Morganton v. Hay, 143 N. C. 326, 55 S. E. 811 (1906); Gulick v.

_Gonn.Pa.& A.(2n En.)-19

290 _ THE AUTHORITY (Part 2

The stringent rules of agency are intended to ‘protect a principalagainst unauthorized acts, but not to shield one who has in fact conferred such authority, or ratified his conduct. Here the plaintiff denied that any authority-had been given further than that implied in

conferring the title “cashier,” and the right to use the stamp abovecopied. It denied that Prince had knowledge of the conduct on thepart of Brinsfield, or that he in any manner ratified the indorsementsor collections which were shown to have been made by him. Thetestimony for the defendant was to the contrary, and was to the effect that the trouble was not so much a want of authority to indorse,as the improper use Brinsfield made of the money after it was collected; that he was a general agent, indorsing drafts, handling the

cash, paying out money, occasionally drawing checks, and in full‘ andcomplete charge of the business during the frequent and necessaryabsences of the principal; that he had discounted another draft withThrower some months before, for $394, which was paid without objection; that on these and other like drafts, indorsed in the same way,of which Prince denied knowledge, Brinsfield had collected some $8,SOO, which he had appropriated to his own use; that he originally wrotethe indorsements in his own handwriting before "the stamp above referred to was prepared; and that there were other stamps in the ofiiceused by him, on which the words “for deposit" were wanting, apparently contemplating that he had authority to indorse in blank and tocollect.The evidence, while conflicting, was sufiicient to sustain the verdict for the defendant. We have no power to interfere where thejudge of the lower court has re-examined the evidence on the motionfor a new trial, and by his refusal to set it aside expressed himselfas fully satisfied with the verdict. Iudgrnent affirmed.

Grover, 33 N. J. Law. 463, 97 Am. Dec. 728 (1867); Boord v. Strauss, 39 Fla.381, 22 South. 713 (1897). - _

'

As to the power when it exists, see Bank of Deer Lodge v. Hope MiningCo., 3 Mont. 146, 35 Am. Rep. 458 (1878).Sometimes the power must be regarded a mere idle declaration unlessthe authority was meant to be conferred. Edwards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 465(1877). As to inference that the rincipal intended his general agent, managing his business, to give notes tl

far

money borrowed or goods purchased tocarry on the business. Lytle v. Bank of Dothah. 121 Ala. 215, 26 South. 6

(1898). The power is presumed to be commensurate with the necessity of thesituation. Whitten v. Bank of Fincastle, 100 Va. 546, 42 S. E. 309 (1902).See the leading case of Stainback v. Read, 11 Grat. 281, 62 Am. Dec. 648 (1854),and the recent case of Bank of Morganton v. Hay, 143 N. C. 326, 55 S. E. 811(1906).

-' Gonn.Pa.&A.(2n En.)

Ch. 1)I

NATURE AND XTENT 291

GOULD v. BOWEN.

(Supreme Court of Iowa, 1868. 26 Iowa, 77.)

Detinue_for a promissory note, claimed by defendant under an indorsement by one Bowen as attorney in fact for plaintiff.Cole, J’

. The material ‘parts of the power of attorney under whichthe defendants claim the authority was given to transfer the note incontroversy, are as follows: “For me and in my place and stead, tosell, convey and dispose o

f any and all property both personal andreal, which I have or may have in Delaware county, Iowa, and givein my name any bill of sale that may be necessary, of personal property, and in my name to give a warranty deed or otherwise for anyof my real estate sold, and to collect in my name any money now orhereafter to become due to me, and to do all other matters in relationLc_>_any_of my property or debts which I could do, if present. Givingand granting unto my said attorriey full power and authority to doand perform all and every act and thing whatsoever, required and

necessary to be done in and about the ‘premises, as fully as I might orcould do if personally present.” '

\Ve hold that this language gave the attorney in fact therein named,the authority’ to transfer the title and possession of the note in controversy to the defendant claiming the same. We need not decidewhether the indorsement thereof would subject the principal to allthe ordinary liabilities of an indorser, as that question is not necessarily involved in this case. This holding is not in conflict with thedoctrine stated in 1 Pars. on Notes and Bills, 106, recognized by thiscourt in the case of Whiting v. \Vestern Stage Co., 20 Iowa, 554,‘ thata general authority to transact business, even if it be expressed inwords of very wide meaning, will not be held to include the powerof making the principal a party to negotiable paper. For, in this case,the attorney in fact was not only empowered to dispose of all personal property and to make bills of sale thereof, but also to do allother matters in relation to the debts of the principal which she coulddo if present. In other words we hold, that by a fair constructionof the power of attorney offered in evidence, the agent was clothedwith the pciwer to make the transfer claimed."

56 Ornzn ILLUBTB.A'I."I0l‘1S.—Tl1e principles enunciated in the foregoing casesas to implied authority of agents authorized to sell, to collect, and to make commercial paper might be illustrated in many other lines of employment. Authority to an agent to act in a particular business, or in particular mattersin a business, is constantly implied or denied according to the usages and customs of the business, the course of‘ dealing of the particular principal, andthe reasonable necessities of the employment. But the inference must always be based upon facts, for which the principal is responsible, and notupon mere supposed convenience or propriety. Moreover, implied authority islimited to acts for the interests of the principal, and of a kind pertaining tothe business upon which the agent.is employed, and which are reasonably

§:'>\\'r

292 THE aurnonrrr (Part 2IThere was no error, therefore, in admitting the evidence as offered,

and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. _

necessary to accomplish that business. These principles have been applied toagents employed:To Bu-y: Beecher v. Venn, 35 Mich. 466 (1877); White v. Langdon, 30 Vt.599 (1858); Born v. Simmons, 111 Ga. 869, 36 S. E. 956 (1900); Heald v. Hendy,89 Cal. 632, 27 Pac. 67 (1891); Smith Premier Typewriter Co. v. NationalHartel Light Co., 72 Misc. Rep. 405, 130 N. Y. Supp. 136 (1911); Salmonv. Austro-American Stave & Lumber Co., 187 Fed. 564, 109 C. C. A. 254 (1911);Brown v. Johnson, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss) 398, 51 Am. Dec. 118 (1849) ; Sangerties & N. Y. Steamboat Co. v. Miller, 76 App. Div. 167, 78 N. Y. Supp. 451(1902); Hackett v. Van Frank, 105 Mo. App. 384, 79 S. W. 1013 (1904);Cleveland v. Pearl, 63 Vt. 127, 21 Atl. 261, 25 Am. St. Rep. 748 (1890);Komorowski v. Krumdick, 56 VVis. 23, 13 N. \V. 881 (1882); Brittain v.Westall, 137 N. C. 30, 49 S. E. 54 (1904); Sprague v. Gillett, 9 Metc. (Mass)91 (1845); Morey v. Webb, 58 N. Y. 350 (1874).To manage the/principal’s business: Gregory v. Loose, 19 Wash. 599, 54Pac. 33 (1898), supra, p. 63; Baldwin v. Garrett, 111 Ga. 876, 36 S. E.~966(1900); Claflin v. Continental Jersey Wks., 85 Ga. 27, 11 S. E. 721 (1890).supra, p. 279; Dearing v. Llghttoot. 16 Ala. 28 (1849); Gulick v. Grover, 33N. J. Law, 463, 97 Am. Dec. 728 (1868); Duncan v. Hartman, 143 Pa. 595,22 Atl. 1099, 24 Am. St. Rep. 570 (1891); Vescelius v, Martin, 11 Colo. 391,18 Pac. 338 (1888). .To lease or rent his principal’s property: Duncan v. Hartman, 143 Pa. 595,22 Atl. 1099, 24 Am. St. Rep. 570 (1891); Babin v. Ensley, 14 App. Div. 518.43 N. Y. Supp. 849 (1897); Fishbaugh v. Spunaugle, 118 Iowa, 337, 92 N. W. 58(19%); Peddicord v. Berk, 74 Kan. 236, 86 Pac. 465 (1906).To prosecute and settle claims for his principal: Scarborough v. Reynolds,12 Ala. 252 (1847); Scales v. Mount, 93 Ala. 82, 9 ‘South. 513 (1890); Hill v.Shpe Co., 150 Mo. 483, 51 S. W. 702; Geiger v". Bolles, 1 Thomp_ & O. 129(1873); Pollock v. Cohen, 32 Ohio St. 514 (1877); City of N. Y. v. Du‘Bois'(C. C.) 86 Fed. 889 (1897).To lend or borrow mane;/.' Exchange Bank v. Thrower, 118 Ga. 433, 45S. E. 316 (1903), ’ante, p. 288; Bickford v. Menier, 107 N. Y. 490, 14 N. E.438 (1887); Rider v. Kirk, 82 Mo. App. 120 (1899); N. Y. Iron Mine v. Neguunee First Nat. Bank, 39 Mich. 644 (1878); Jacobs v. Morris (1901) 1 Ch.61, 70 L. J. Ch. 183, 84 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 112, 49 Wkly. Rep. 365 (affirmed in[1902] 1 Ch. 816. 71 L. J. Ch. 363, 86 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 275. 18 T. L. R. 384,50 Wkly. Rep. 371); Klindt v. Higgins, 95 Iowa, 529, 64 N. W. 414 (1895);Wilson v. Campbell, 110 Mich. 580, 68 N. W. 278, 35 L R. A. 544 (1896).To make contracts of employment: Campbell v. Day, 90 Ill. 363 (1878) (au~thority of architect to employ workmen); Bush v. S0. Brewing,Co., 69 Miss.200, 13 South. 856 (1891) (employ attorney); Sevier v. Birmingham, etc.,Co., 92 Ala. 258, 9 South. 405 (1800), and Holmes v. McAllister, 123 Mich. 493,82 N. W. 220, 48 L. R. A. 396 (1900) (employ medical aid). As to the authorityof the agent to employ other agents, see post, p. 341.