Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/381

 —

—

.

Part IV.

Formation of the Contract of Agency.

In this case the first-mentioned person is estopped from denying the fact of the third person's agency mider the general law of estoppel, and it is immaterial whether the ostensible agent had no authority whatever in fact (i), or merely acted in excess of his The principal cannot set up a private limitaactual authority (k).

159 Sect.

5.

Agency by Estoppel.

upon the agent's ostensible authority (l), for, so far as third persons are concerned, the ostensible authority is the sole test of his liability (m). But the onus lies upon the person dealing with the agent to prove either real or ostensible authority (n), and it is a matter of fact in each case whether ostensible authority existed for the particular act for which it is sought to make the principal tion

liable

(o)

A

person who assumes to act as an agent is estopped from denying the agency as between himself and the person on whose behalf he professed to act {p). Sect.

Co -principals and Co-agents.

6.

347. Co-principals may jointly appoint an agent to act for them, and in such case become jointly liable to him {q), and may jointly sue The agent is not bound to account separately to one of him(/')several co-principals (s), and if he has done so is not thereby discharged from liability to the other or others {t) unless the co-principals are also partners

A

Co-principals,

{a).

may

give authority to co-agents to act for him. Co-agents, severally. A mere authority to act, without further specification, is a joint authority (b), and can be acted upon only by the co-agents jointly (c), but an authority given jointly and severally may be acted upon by all or any of the co-agents so as to bind the principal {d)

348.

principal

either jointly, or jointly

and

.

Pickard

0')

v.

Sears (1837), 6 A.

&

E. 469; Freeman v. Cooke (1848), 2 Exch.

654.

Union Credit Bank

v. Mersey Docks and Harhour Board, [1899] 2 Q,. B. Smith, [1900] 2 Ch. 425. {T) Haivken v. Bourne (1841), 8 M. & W. 703 ; and see Maddich v. Marshall RoUnson (1864), 17 C. B. (n. s.) 829 RiletjY. Packington (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 536 V. Mollett (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 802. (m) Pickering v. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38. See further on this subject (k)

205

King



v.





p. 201, post. [n) Pole V. Leaslc (1862),

33 L. J. (cH.) 155. Brazier v. Camp (1894), 63 L. J. (q. b.) 257 Dijer v. Pearson (1824), 4 D. & E. 648 ; Young v. Cole (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 724. ^{p) Moore v. Peacheij (1891), 7 T. L. E. 748 ; Roberts y. Ogilhy (1821), 9 Price, (o)



Keay

v. Femvick (1876), 1 C. P. D. 745. Skinner v. Stocks (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 437 Cothay v. Fennell (1830), 10 B. & C. 671 Jones v. Cuthhertson (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 504. (s) Hatsall v. Griffith (1834), 2 Or. & M. 679. (t) Innes v. Stephenson L. E. (1831), 1 Mood. & E. 145 ; Lee v. Sankey J (1872), J' ^ ^ ^ 15 Eq. 204. iq)

(r)





(a)

Innes

v.

Stephenson, supra;

and

see

Heath

v.

Chilton (1844), 12

M. & W.

632.

Broivn v. Andrew (1849), 18 L. J. (q. b.) 153. Boyd V. Durand (1809), 2 Taunt. 161 Broiun V. Nixon (1832), 9 Bing. 393.

h) c)



Bell

{d)

Guthrie

v.

Armstrong (1822), 5 B.

&

Aid. 628.

v.

Andreiu, supra; and see