Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/391

 — Part V.

—Authority

of the Agent.

169

An execution of show that the agent is signing for him (i). such a deed in the agent's own name and with his own seal, by the authority of the principal, is now, however, as effectual in law as if he had executed it in the name and with the seal of the principal

fiECT. 4.

Exercise of Authority,

(A).

An

agent having authority to sign a bill of exchange cannot by EfEect of not signing in his own name render his principal liable thereon (l). ^f^^f^f P^^'^^P^ Subject to this rule and to any personal liability which the agent acting in of his own reason name {m), incur by an agent may may exercise his authority, whether verbally or by writing, without disclosing the name or existence of his principal {n). •

Part VI. Sect.

366. By delegation upon another person

is

of

— Delegation.

1.

In General,

here meant the devolution from an agent Meaning a power or duty intrusted to the agent

of

by his principal. Dtlegatus non potest delegare is the maxim which lays down the General rule general rule that an agent cannot delegate his powers or duties to ^ffg^^JiQ^ another, in whole or in part, without the express authority of the principal

(a).

Generally speaking, where there is personal confidence reposed or skill required (b) there can be no delegation, however general the nature of the duties (c), unless urgent necessity compels the handing over of the responsibility to someone else (d). The powers of directors under tlie Companies Acts cannot Directors of be delegated except in accordance with the articles of association companies, of the

company

(e).

White V. Om/kr (1795), 6 Term Eep. 176; JVtlks v. Back (1802), 2 East, (?;) 142; Berkeley v. Hardy (1826), 8 D. & E. 102; M'Ardle v. Irish Iodine and Marine Salts Manufacturing Co. (1864), 15 Ir. C. L. E. 146. [k) Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 46. (/) LeadUtter v. Farronj (1816), 5 M. & S. 345, per Lord Ellenborough and HoLROYD, J.; and see Bult v. Morrell (1840), 12 A. & E. 745, 750. But see Lindus v. Bradwell (1848), 5 C. B. 583 (where, however, the agent was a married woman, who, as such, could only sign as agent). {in) See p. 219, post. [n) Calder v. Dohell (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 486 Wilson v. Hart (1817), 1 Moore, 45 Weidner v. Hoggett (1876), 1 C. P. D. 533. (a) Sims v. Britten (1832), 1 Nev. & M. (k. B.) 594. Catlin v. Bell (1815), 4 Camp. ^(6) Oockran v. Irlam (1814), 2 M. & S. 301 183 Henderson v. Barneiuall (1827), 1 Y. & J. 387 Be County Palatine loan ((nd Discount Co. (1874), 9 Ch. App. 691 j Tarry y. Ashton (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 314; Doe d. Rhodes v. Bohinson (1837), 3 Bing. (n. C.) 677. (c) Burial Board of St. Margaret, Rochester v. Thompson (1871), L. E. 6 C. P.









445, 457. {d)

T. L. (e)

De Bussche

v.

Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D. 286. 310; Giuilliam '

R415. Re County Palatine Loan and Discount

(18H6), 1 Ch. App. 561; Totterdell v. a 866), L. E. 1 C. P. 674.

Co.,

v.

Twist (1895) 11

supra; Re Leeds Banking Co.

Fareham Blue Brick and

Tile

Co.,

Ltd.