Ing to a firm of brewers, the Court held that the principal

was liable for all the acts of the agent which were within

the authority usually confided to an agent of that character,

notwithstanding any private limitations as between the

principal and the agent, put upon that authority.

Brockleshy v. Temfiperance Permanent Building Society

(1895), Aj)p. Cas. 173; here a principal liaving entrusted

his ai^ent with securities and instructed him to raise a

certain sum of money upon tliem, the agent borrowed a

AUTHORITY OF AGENTS. 25

larger sum upon them and fraudulently appropriated the

difierence. The lender acted hond fide in the matter, and

without any knowledge of the limitation given by the

principal to his agent. It was held that the principal

could not redeem the securities without paying the lender

all he had lent ; even though the lender did not know, nor

made an}^ inquiry, whether the agent had authority to

borrow at all, and though the agent had obtained the loan

by fraud and forgery.

John Griffith Cycle Corporation v. Humher & Com-

pany (1899), 2 Q. B. 414. C. A. ; here it was held that a letter

written by an agent within the scope of his authority, which

refers to and recognizes an unsigned document as contain-

ing the terms of a contract made by his principal, is a

sufficient memorandum of the contract within the 4th sec-

tion of the Statute of Frauds, and it is not necessary, in

order to satisfy the Statute, that the principal should have

authorized the agent to sign the letter as a record of the

contract.

With regard to Bills of Exchange. —

Alexander v. Mackenzie (1848), 13 Jur. 346, & 6 C. B.

766 ; here it was held that when a bill is endorsed " per

procuration," it intimates that the endorser is acting under

a special authority, and the person who takes the bill is

bound for his own safety to ascertain the extent of the

authority.

Stagg v. Elliott (1862), 31 L. J. C. P. 260, & 6 L. T.

433 ; here it was laid down that when a Bill of Exchange

purports on the face of it to be accepted " per procuration,"

it is a notice to any person who takes it that the agent so

accepting has only a special or limited authority, and a

holder cannot maintain an action against the principal if

the authority has been exceeded.

And now by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46

Vict. c. 61), section 25, it is expressly provided ; " A signature

26 The law of agency.

by procuration operates as notice that the agent has but a I

limited authority to sign, and the principal is only bound

by such signature if the agent in so signing was actings

within the actual limits of his authority."

It seems, however, that in cases of the sio-nature of I

instruments, which do not fall within the above section of '

the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882, it does not necessarily

follow, because an agent signs " per procuration," that the

principal is not bound unless the agent in so signing is

acting within the actual limits of his authority : thus if a

general agent, acting within the ordinary scope of his

employment, signs " per procuration," it seems that the

principal would be bound even though the agent in the

particular instance may have exceeded his actual authority

—vide Smith v. McGwire (1858), 3 H. & K. 554, & 27 L. J.

Ex. 465.

Mercantile Agents the extent of whose authority is implied