In Be Hannan's Empress Gold Mining and Develojwient

Company (1896), 2 Ch. 643, & 75 L. T. 54. C. A. ; here the

Court of Appeal approved of the above quoted passage in

the judgment of Williams, J., in Clerk v. Laurie, uhi supra.

Where an authority has been partly executed, and cannot

be revoked without causing loss or damage to the agent, it

becomes irrevocable, on the ground that a principal is bound

to indemnify his agent against any loss or damage that he

may incur in transacting the agency. This was laid down by

the Court of Appeal in Read v. Anderson {vide p. 67, ante).

And though, by force of the Gaming Act of 1892, this case

Is no longer law, there seems no doubt that the })rinciple as

there laid down still holds good in cases of non-gaming con-

tracts — vide Seymour v. Bridge (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 4G0,

and other cases which deal with the question of the

Indemnification of an agent by his principal.

Renunciation by Agent. — It seems that a remunerated

agent, who has accepted an ai)pointnient as agent upon

Valuable consideration, is not entitled to renounce and throw

DETERMINATION OF AGENCY. 143

up such agency at will, and that if he does do so, he will be

liable to his principal for any loss or damage that the latter

may suffer by reason of his renouncing the agency.

But if the agent is an unremunerated or gratuitous agent,

then he is entitled to renounce, at his will. But even an un-

remunerated agent is bound to give his principal reasonable

notice of his intention to renounce.

In Story on Agency (9th ed. Sect. 478) we find it laid

down as follows : —

" The agency may be determined by the renunciation of

the agent. This renunciation may be before any part of the

authority is executed, or when it is in part executed. But

In either case, if the agency is founded upon a valuable con-

sideration, the agent, by renouncing it, makes himself liable

for any damage which his principal may sustain thereby.

If the agency is purely gratuitous, then, according to our

law, the principal will not be entitled to any damages for its

non-execution. But if it was in part executed and then

renounced, and the principal sustains damages thereby, the

agent will be held responsible therefor, upon the known

distinction between non-feasance and misfeasance in cases

of gratuitous agency. But in all cases where the agent re-

nounces his agency, he would seem bound to give notice

thereof to the principal."

In Evans on Agency (2nd. Ed.) we find it laid down as

follows : —

" An agent may, of course, renounce his agency at

any stage ; but if the agency has been undertaken for a

Valuable consideration, he will be liable in damages to his

principal ; and the same rule will apply even in the case of

gratuitous undertakings, which have been performed in

part by the agent."

2. By Operation of Law. ВЂ” (a) It may be terminated by

the complete performance of the object of the agency ; as

where an agent employed to purchase a piece of land duly

purchases it.