Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/388

 Agency.

166 Sect,

3.

Implied Authority,

An

be within the scope of an agent's implied authority, of the ordinary discharge of his duties {e), or to protect the principal's property (/). Giving a man into custody in order actually to protect the principal's property is within the implied authority, but so acting on mere suspicion is not (g) and mere belief in the danger is probably not act, to

must be an apparently necessary one, arising out



sufficient [h).

A distinction must be observed between the acts of an agent of a reasonable nature and those of an excessive or improper character, which latter would not fall within such authority (i). The manager of a restaurant has no implied authority to give a customer into custody on a dispute over the bill(A;), but a person in a similar capacity is justified in giving persons into custody on a charge of creating disorder on the premises (1). Illegal acts.

360. There can of course, owing to general rules of the common no authority given to do an illegal act so as to justify the and no agent can recover remuneration or indemnity against a principal for the performance of an act known by him to be illegal (m). Powers of attorney given for illegal purposes, as in

law, be agent,

general restraint of trade ings (o), are void. Estate and house agents,

(n),

or to prevent penal legal proceed-

An estate or house agent authorised to procure a purchaser no implied authority to enter into a contract of sale(^); nor has an agent who is authorised to treat with people, and to permit them to view property (a). An agent authorised to act " in and about" a purchase has no implied authority to purchase (6); but an agent authorised to sell may sign an agreement for sale so as to bind his principal (c). Authority to find a purchaser and enter 361.

-j^o,^

(e) Lord BoJinghrohe v. Local Board of Svnndon New Town (1874), L. E. 9 There is no implied authority in a servant to do unlawful acts, nor C. P. 575, in a solicitor to exceed his necessary duties, e.g., where issuing^. /a,, to direct the sheriff to seize certain goods {Smith v. Real (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 340). B. 390; Allen v. London and South Western (/) Hanson y. Waller, [1901] 1 Bail. Co. (1870), L. E. 6 Q. B. 65; Abrahams v. DeaUn, [1891] 1 Q. B. 516 (a rail way clerk or manager of a business has no implied authority to give into custody except for the purpose of protecting the property of his employer). P. {g) Edwards v. London and North Western Bail. Co. (1870), L. E. 5 0.

K

445. (h)

Knight

v.

North Metropolitan Tramways

Banh of Neio South Wales

Co. (1898), 14 T. L. E, 286.

4 App. Cas. 270. Baker (1896), 12 T, L. E. 451. {l) Ashton V. Spiers and Fo7id (1893), 9 T. L. E. 606. (m) Collins v. Blantern (1767), 2 Wils. (k. b.) 341 Holman v. Johnson (1775), Cowp., per Lord Mansfield at p, 343. See f mother, pp. 196, 197, post, (?)

[k]

Stedman

v. Oiuston (1879),

v.



1

[n) Mitchel V.

Kirwan p) Hamer

Beynolds (1711),

Goodman

1

Smith, L. C. (4th

ed.), 406.

Dowl. 330. Chadburn v. Moore (1892), 61 v. Sharp (1874), L. E. 19 Eq. 108 L. J. (CH.) 674 Prior v. Moore (1887), 3 T. L. E. 624. But he has authority to describe the property and state facts affecting its value {Mullens v. Miller (1882), 22 Ch. D. 194). (a) Godiuin v. Brind (1868), 17 W. E. 29, (b) The Vale of Neath Colliery Co. v, Furness (1876), 45 L. J. (CH.) 276. There is a substantial difference (c) Bosenbaum v. Belson, [1900] 2 Ch. 267. between "to sell " and "to find a purcKaser." (o)

v.

(1841), 9