Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/389

 —

— Part V.

Authority of the Agent. imply an authority

into a contract for the sale of property does not to receive the

A

bailiff

the rent

purchase-money

167

(d).

authorised to distrain has implied authority to receive

BaiiiiT

A

Steward,



no authority 363. The

to

commit an

implied

assault

(k).

authority of

a

subject to special instructions, (1) To sell in his own name (I) (2) To sell on reasonable credit (m), as he may think best for his principal

includes

factor

authority, Factor,



(3)

(4)

3.

Authority,

(^).

steward has implied authority to give or receive notices nor has a steward to quit {/), but a mere rent collector has not (g) implied authority to bind his principal by signing bills of exchange (h), A steward or by a contract to grant a lease for a term of years (i). appointed for a particular occasion has a more limited implied authority than one appointed to act generally, and when appointed only for the purpose of maintaining order on a special occasion, has

362.

Sect.

Implied

and {7i)

To warrant (o) To receive payment when he has

at such time

and price





sold in his

does not include authority to barter (q) principal's goods, or the bill of lading therefor his authority (t). It

own name

or (s),

pledge

(p).

(r)

the

or to delegate

364. An agent also has implied authority to act in accordance Custom, with the customs and usages of the place where {u), or the business

Myim v. Jolife (1834), 1 Mood. & E. 326. Hatch V. Hale (1850), 15 Q. B. 10; Boulton v. Reynolds (1859), 2 E, & E. 369, but a man left in possession by the bailiif has no such implied authority {ibid.). And an agent authorised to receive rents for his own benefit has no {d) (e)

authority to distrain therefor ( [Fart^ v. Shew (1833), 9 Bing. 608). (/) Hoe V. Pierce (1809), 2 Camp. 96; Papillon v. Brunton (1860), 5 H. & N". 518 Jones v. Phipps (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 567. (g) Pearse v. Boulter (1860), 2 E. & E. 133. (h) Davidson v. Stanley (1841), 3 Scott, N. E. 49. (i) Collen v. Gardner (1856), 21 Beav. 540, 542, on the ground that a steward is employed to manage property, which does not involve a right to contract with tenants, nor is any such custom established. But he may contract for the usual and customary leases [Peers v. Sneyd (1853), 17 Beav. 151). {k) Lucas V. Mason (1875), L. E. 10 Exch. 251. [l] Baring v. Corrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 137, 143 Ejc parte Dixon, Re Henley (1876), 4 Ch. D. 133. (w) HoughtonY. Matthews (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 485, 489 Scott v. Surman (1742), Willes, 400, 406. (it) Smart v. Sandars (1846), 3 0. B. 380. (o) Pickering v. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38, 45, but apparently only where there exists a custom to warrant the class of article sold {Dingle v. Hare (1859), 7 C. B. (N. s.) 145). (p) Dririkwater v. Goodwin (1775), 1 Cowp. 251, 255, but only by the usual mode of payment {Underwood v. Nicholls (1855), 17 0. B. 239, and p. 165, ante), {q) Guerreiro v. Peile (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 616. (r) Gill V. Kymer Fielding v. Kymer (1821), 2 B. & B. (1821), 5 Moore, 503 639; Martini v. Coles (1813), 1 M. & S. 140; PatersonY. TasA (1743), 2 Str. 1178 Gui chard v. Morgan (1819), 4 Moore, 36. {s) Newsom v. Thornton (1805), 6 East, 17. (0 Gockran v. Irlam (1814), 2 M. & S. 301 Solly v. Rathbone (1814), 2 M. & S. 298. {u) Foster v. Pearson (1835), 1 C. M. & E. 849; Pollock v. Stables (1848), 12 Q. B. 765.