118; Here it was held that an agent who carries on a

concern for another party has no authority implied by law

to raise money on the credit of his principals, even in the

event of a sudden emergency or necessity arising : but that

such an authority can only be found in the cases of a

master of a ship, and of an acceptor of a bill who accepts

to save the drawer's honour.

Cox V. TJte Midland Counties Bailwaij Company (1849),

3 Ex. 2g8, k. 13 Jur. G5 ; in this case, after the Railway Com-

pany had been incorporated by statute, an accident occurred

on the line to a passenger through tlie negligence of a servant

of the company. The Court held that neither the engine-

driver, nor the guard at the station where it took place, nor

the superintendent of the traffic department, had any im-

plicMl authority to make contracts, obligatory on the com-

pany, with medical men called in to attend an injured person.

I'arke b., in delivering the judgment of the court, said,

" The employment of an agent for a particular jiurpose

gives only the authority necessary for that agency under

ordinary circumstances : as this Court held in the case of

an agent to a mine (llaiutai/ne v. Bourne (1841), 7 M. & W.

FORMATION OF AGENCY. 7

595), Where the question was as to his power to bind his

principals by borrowing money when an emergency arose,

In which it was highly expedient to do so ; and it was held

he had no such power."

Banh of New SoiUk Wales v. Oivston (ltS79), 4 App.

Cas. 270 ; here the Privy Council held, that the bank

(the principal) was not liable for the acting bank manager

having authorized criminal proceedings to be taken against

a merchant in good position, in order to obtain more

quickly from him a bill which the bank claimed. They laid

down, as the ground of their decision, that an authority

might be general, or it might be special and derived from

the emergency of the particular occasion ; in the former

case it would be enough, commonly, to show that the agent

was acting in what he did on behalf of the principal ; but

In the latter case evidence would have to be given of a

state of facts which showed that such emergency was

present, or from which it might reasonably be supposed to

be present ; for if it were otherwise the special authority

would be equivalent to a general one.

Gwilliam v. Ttuist ct- another (1895), 2 Q. B. 84. C. A.,

& 11 T. L. R. 415 ; in this case while the defendants' omnibus

was being driven by defendants' servant, a police constable,

thinking the driver was drunk, ordered him to discontinue

driving, the omnibus being then only a quarter mile from

defendants' yard. The driver and conductor then authorized

a man who chanced to be standing by, and who had

formerly been a conductor to the defendants, to drive the

omnibus home ; he, through negligence while driving home,

caused personal injuries to the plaintiff. The Court of

Appeal held that as the defendants might easily have

been communicated with, there was no necessity whatever

for their servants to have employed another person ; and

that they were not liable for the negligence of the person

so employed. In giving judgment, Lord Esher, M.R., said;

" I am very much inclined to agree with the view taken by