Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/386

 — Agency.

164 Sect.

2.

Construction of Authority. Construction a question of fact.

Effect of authority in general terms.

larger

amount

authoritv.

{a).

Stjb-Sect.

incidental acts.

— Verhal

Authority.

business. An authority conferred in general terms gives an agent power to act in the ordinary way in reference to the particular business, and to do subordinate acts (b), and all reasonable acts in relation to the business (c), but does not, in the absence of special conditions, give authority to take more than the usual risks or employ extraordinary {d).

An

agent whose instructions are in ambiguous terms is he acts in good faith and places a reasonable construction on his authority (e), but where the limits imposed are definite, he has no right to exercise a discretion (/).

356.

justified if

Sect. Necessary and

3.

355. When authority is given by word of mouth, its construction and extent are questions of fact for the jury, depending on the circumstances of the particular case and the usages of trade or

means Ambiguous

although the agents were indebted to the principal to a

for value,

3.

Implied Authority.

357. The implied authority of an agent extends to all subordinate acts which are necessary or ordinarily incidental to the exercise of his exjDress authority {g). It does not, however, extend to acts which are outside the ordinary course of his business, or which are neither necessary nor incidental to his express authority Qi) The manager of a business has authority to do all acts necessary to the regular conduct of the business (^), but he has no implied .

Authority to pledge credit.

Re Agra and Masterman's Bank

Maitland v. The (1867), 2 Ch. App. 391 India, Londonand China (1869), 38 L. J. (CH.) 363. (&) Collen V. Gardner (1856), 21 Beav. 540. East India Co. v. Hensleij (1794), (c) Wiltshire v. Sims (1808), 1 Camp. 258 Hoivard v. Braithiuaite (1812), 1 Yes. & B. 202, 208, 209. 1 Esp. 112 {d) Seymour v. Bridge (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 460 Fa])eY. Westacott, [1894] 1 Q. B. 272; Hine Brothers v. Steamship Insurance Syndicate, Ltd. (1895), 72 L. T. 79; UnderiuoodY. Nicholls (1855), 17 C. B. 239 Ex parte Howell (1865), 12 L. T. 785 Blumherg Y. Life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corporation, [1897] 1 Ch. 171. The authority to receive money is to receive in cash., and not by a set-off, nor, in the absence of special custom, by bill of exchange or cheque (see p. 165, post). (e) Ireland Y. Livingston (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 395; Boden v. French (1851), 10 C. B. 886 Johnston v. Kershaiu (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 82. ( f) Bertram Y. Qodfraij (1830), 1 Knapp, 381. (g) Bayley v. Wilkins (1849), 7_C. B. 886. (A) An agent authorised to deliver a horse has no authority to give a warranty {Woodin V. Burford (1834), 2 Cr. & M. 391-) nor has an agent authorised to sell a horse privately {Brady v. Todd (1861), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 592), unless he is the agent of a horse dealer {Howard v. Sheward (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 148 Bank of Scotland v. Fafeow (1813), 1 Dow, 40, 45; Baldry v. ^a^es (1885), 52 L. T. 620); but an agent authorised to sell at a fair may give such a warranty {Brooks v. Hassall So an agent authorised to get a bill discounted may war(1883), 49 L. T. 569). rant it good, but not indorse it in the principal's name {Fenn v. Harrison (1790), The 3 Term Eep. 757 and see Dingle v. Hare (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 145). depositary of a policy of insurance on a ship at sea has no implied authority to give notice to the underwriter of abandonment as for a total loss {Jardine v. Leathley (1863), 3 B. & S. 700). (?) Hatvken v. Bourne (1841), 8 M. & W. 703, including the accepting of a bill in the name in which the business is carried on where drawing and accepting bills is incident to the ordinary course of the business {Edmunds v. Bushell (1865), (a)

Chartered Mercantile



Bank of