Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/528

 516 FEDERAL REPORTBE. �point an agent ; and if he assumed to make such appointment �without authority, he would be personallyresponsiblefor the �conduct of his subordinate. If, however, the trust was one �whioh could be delegated, he would be liable in his officiai �capacity only, The substance of the law upon this subject �is thus stated in Story on Agency, § 14 : �" The true doctrine wHch is to be deduced from the decisions is, and it is entirely co-incident with the dictates of natural justice, that the authority of an agent is exclusively personal, unless from the express lan- guage used, or from the fair presumptions growing out of the transaction, or of the usages of the trade, broader power was intended to be con- ferred on the agent." See, also, Gommer cM Bank v. Norton, 1 Hill, 505. �That the reoeiver of a railroad must act very largely through servants and agents in the ordinary business of the road is evident. He is in fact the superintendent and man- ager of the road, and the head of an army of employes whose duties are distinctly defined by usage and the necessities of the case. There can be no doubt of the power of the re- ceiver to appoint these agents, and if his appointments are made in the exercise of a reasonable judgment and discre- tion, he would not be liable personally for their negligences or misfeasances. But his authority to raise money upon certificates stands upon a different footing. His general authority as receiver gave Mr. Bancroft no power to issue these certificates. It could only be done under the power con- ferred by a special order of the court. It was his duty to prepare a form of certificate in conformity with this order, and to sell the securities upon the most favorable terms he could obtain. The preparation of the certificates involved very little in the way of skill or judgment. Their negotia- tion and sale, and the receipt of the moneys, were the im- portant features of the transaction. It was a personal trust which he had no right to delegate to another. It involved, not merely the sale of the certificates upon the best possible terms, but the safe-keeping of the moneys realized by such sale. If he had the power to authorize an agent to sell and receive the money upon this certificate, the receipt of the money by the agent would be a receipt by the receiver ; and
 * f the agent absconded with it, the receiver would incur no

��� �