Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/372

 Agency.

150 Sect.

].

Principals,

Lunatics.

majority (p). But an infant cannot recover back money actually paid in pursuance of such a contract (q) and an agent can bind a minor in respect of necessaries (r), and also in respect of those contracts which at common law have to be expressly renounced by the minor on attaining majority in order to be rendered void (s). A power of attorney given by an infant, other than a married woman, is void (a). An infant principal is not liable for a tort committed by his agent, unless committed by his direct command (Z>), but an infant principal can authorise an agent to expel a trespasser, and the agent may plead such authority by way of defence in an action by the trespasser (c).

330. A lunatic cannot be a principal except by virtue of an estoppel (d). He cannot authorise an agent to alter the provisions of a settlement (e), or to apply for shares in a limited company (/). But a lunatic may be treated as a principal where the third party has no knowledge of, and takes no advantage of, his lunacy

Drunkards.

Married

women.

{g).

331. A drunkard may avoid a contract entered into by him while he was in such a state of intoxication as not to know what he was doing, but a person contracting with him may enforce the contract if he can prove that he had no knowledge of, and took no advantage of, the drunkenness (li). A person who contracted when drunk may ratify his contract on becoming sober (i). of a married woman to contract is limited her separate property held at the date of the contract She also has special power, whether or subsequently acquired (k). an infant or not, to appoint by deed an attorney for the purpose of

332. The competency

to the extent of

Smith v. King, (p) Infants' Eelief Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Yict. c. 62), ss. 1, 2 and see title Infants. [1892] 2 Q. B. 543 (q) Valentmi v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 166. (r) See title Infants. (.s) Whittingham v. Murdy (1889), 60 L. T. 956. (a) Zouch V. Parsons (1765), 3 Burr. 1794. (6) Burnard v. Haggis (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 45. (c) JSiver V. Joiies (1846), 9 Q. B. 623. (d) See pp. 153 et seq., post. He may act during a lucid interval {Drew v. Nunn B. D. 661 Elliot v. J??ce (1857), 7 De G. M. & G. 475 ; Hall v. Warren (1879), 4 mere delusion Jenkins v. Morris (1880), 14 Ch. D. 674). (1804), 9 Yes. 605 does not necessarily render a man incapable of contracting. See, generally, title Lunatics etc. (e) Mliot V. Ince, supra, at p. 487 (alteration for his benefit) but see as to contracts for his benefit Hx parte Bradhury, Be Walden (1839), Mont. & Ch.



a



A





625, 633.

Daily Telegraph'' Newspaper Co. v. McLaughlin, [1904] A. C. 776. The Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone, [1892] 1 Q. B. 599 Beavan v. McDonnell (1854), 9 Exch. 309; Camplell v. ^ooj^er (1855), 3 Sm. & G. 153; ElliotY. Ince, supra J Molten v. Camroux (1849), 4 Exch. 17. Lord Chanwohth, L.C., suggests (/)

(g)



in Elliot V. Ince, supra, at p. 487, that this doctrine is limited to executed contracts of gale. lunatic may enter into an implied contract for necessaries {Re Rhodes (1890), 44 Ch. D. 94). {h) Gore v. Gibson (1845), 13 M. & W. 623. Mattheius v. Baxter (1873), L. E. 8 Exch. 132. (?:) {k) Married Women's Property Acts, 1882 and 1893 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 75 and 56 & 57 Yict. c. 63). See title Husband and Wife.

A