Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/382

 —

—— Agency.

160 Sect.

A

may

appoint co-agents, and give power to a is commonly done in the case of a joint stock company appointing directors (e). In such case the principal will not be bound by the act of any number less than the appointed quorum (/). Where a power of a public nature is committed to several persons, the act of the majority is binding upon the minority (g). One co-agent is not liable for the act of another unless he has expressly authorised or tacitly permitted it {h), or the co-agents are

6.

principal, again,

quorum

Co-princi-

pals and Co-agents.

Quorum of co-agents. Liability of co-agents for

each other's

to act

on his behalf, as

partners.

acts.

Sect.

7.

Stamp Duties.

349. The appointment, if by deed, and not otherwise provided must bear a revenue stamp of 10s. if otherwise, in writing, a sixpenny stamp will probably suffice (i). This applies to all documents to be proved in the Courts of this country. If to be proved abroad, the document must also comply with the revenue

Stamps.

for,



laws of the foreign country (k). Exemptions from duty in this country are provided under the Copyholds Act, 1894 (Q and, under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 {m)j on transfers by trustees of moneys in a friendly society.

Part V.

—Authority Sect.

How

1.

of the Agent.

In General,

—

350. The authority

of the agent as has been seen in Part lY. be derived expressly from an instrument, either under seal or simply in writing, or may be conferred by word of mouth or even signs. Authority may also be implied from the conduct of the parties or from the nature of the employment ; may in certain cases be due to the necessity of circumstances, and in others be conferred by a valid ratification subsequent to the actual performance. In extent the authority may be confined to a particular

derived

may

Ridley v. Plymouth Grinding and Baking Co. (1848), 2 Exch. 711. (/) Kirh. Bell (1851), 16 Q. B. 290 D'Arcy v. Tamar, Kit Hill, and Callington Rail. Co. (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 158 and see Re Liverpool Household Stores Association (1890), 59 L. J. (CH.) 616, and Brown v. Andrew (1849), 18 L. J. (e)





(q. B.)

153.

Grindley v. Barker (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 229. (/i) This rule is chiefly exemplified in the case of the acts of one or more directors of a company without the knowledge of the others, and extends to fraudulent acts {Cargill v. Boiuer (1878), 10 Ch. D. 502 ; Re Denham & Co. Re Montrotier Asphalte Co. {Perry's Case) (1876), 34L.T. (1883), 25 Ch. D. 752 716 Lucas v. Fitzgerald (1903), 20 T. L. E. 16 Bear v. Stevenson (1874), 30 L. T. 177 ; Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Lord Fermoy (1870), 5 Ch. App. 763 ; CuUerne v. London and Suburban Weir V. Bell (1878), L. E. 3 Ex. D. 238 General Permanent Building Society (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 485). Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 39), schedule, tit. "Letter or (?) The Eor stamp Power of Attorney " Mounsey v. Stephenson (1827), 7 B. & C. 403. duties generally, see title Eeyenue. {k) BHstoiu V. Secqueville (1850), 19 L, J. (ex.) 289 ; Stonelake v. Babb (1770), 5 Burr. 2674. {T) 51 & 58 Yict. c. 46, s. 58. (m) 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 33 (b). {g)











'