8 ' . Tee law of agency.

Eyre, C.J., in the case of Nicholson v. Chapman (1793),

2 H. Bl. 254, and by Parke, b., in the case of Haivtayne

V. Bourne (1841), 7 m. & w. 595, to the effect that, this

doctrine of authority by reason of necessity is confined to

certain well-known exceptional cases, such as those of the

master of a ship, or tlie acceptor of a bill of exchange

for the honour of the drawer."

Smith, L. J., also said ; " The impossibility of communi-

cating with the principal is the foundation of the doctrine

of an agent of necessity."

When a wife is living with her husband, and he refuses

to provide her with proper necessaries, she is entitled to

pledge his credit for the purpose of obtaining them. A

wife also who is living apart from her husband owing to

his desertion or other misconduct, if he will not provide

her with proper necessaries, has the same right.

Dehenham v. Mellon (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 403, & G App.

Cas. 24 ; here Lord Selborne, L.C., said ; " According to all

the authorities there is no such mandate in law {i.e. no man-

date making the wife the agent of the husband to pledge his

credit) from the fact of marriage only, except in the parti-

cular case of necessity : a necessity which may arise when

the husband has deserted his wife, or has by his conduct

compelled her to live apart from him without properly pro-

Viding for her ; but not when the husband and wife are

living together, and when the wife is properly maintained."

JoJtnson (& others v. Sumner (1858), 27 L. J. Ex. 841,

& 4 Jur. N.S. 462 ; here it was held that if a husband

turns his wife away, and she is unable to maintain herself,

she has an authority from necessity, to pledge his credit for

goods supplied to her; but (jujorc whether this rule holds

good in a case where a labouring man turns away his

wife, she being capaljle of earning as much as he ; or where

a man turns away his wife, she having a settlement double

his income in amount.

FORMATION OF AGENCY. 9

But if a wife leaves her husband without good cause,

and without his consent, she loses the right to supply

herself with necessaries at his expense — vide Eastland v.

BuTchell (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 436.

If a husband and wife have agreed to live separately

upon the terms that she shall accept an allowance, which

is duly paid, she has no authority to pledge her husband's

credit for necessaries, even though the allowance is inade-

quate— rir/e Biffin V. Bignell (1862), 7 H. & N. 877.

to pledge credit — принимать имущественную ответственность; вступать в обязательства

If a wife is living apart from her husband by reason of

her adultery, she loses her right to pledge his credit for

necessaries — vide Cooper v. Lloyd (1859), 6 C. B. N.S. 519.

But where a wife has committed adultery with her

husband's connivance, and he subsequently turns her out-

of-doors and leaves her without any means of support, he

is liable for necessaries supplied for her maintenance —

vide Wilson v. Glossop (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 354. C. A.

A ship-master has, as stated above, an implied authority

to bind the owners of the ship or cargo, by acts done for

their benefit, in a case of necessity or emei'gency, when he

is unable to communicate with them.

Webster v. Seekamp (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 352 ; here it was

held that a ship-master had an authority, in a case of neces-

sity, in the owner's absence, to pledge the owner's credit for

repairs done to the ship ; and that in order to ascertain

what was really necessary, it must be considered what a

prudent owner would himself order if he were present.

The Bonaparte (1851), 8 Moo. P. C 459 ; here it was

held that a ship- master may, in a case of necessity, when

he is unable to communicate with the owners, for the pro-

tection of their property, hypothecate the ship and the cargo.

Australian Steam Navigation Company v. Morse (1872),