47 Vict. C. 52), are vested in the trustee, from the date of the

act of bankruptcy.

Marhvich v. Hardingham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 339. C. A.,

& 43 L. T, 647 ; here it was held that upon the plaintiff's

bankruptcy, the defendant ceased to be the agent and

attorney of the plaintiff, and did not become the agent of

the assignee.

148 The law of agency.

But if a transfer of a bankrupt principal's property is

made after the act of bankruptcy, but before the adjudica-

tion, by his agent, to a hondjide purchaser for value, who

has had no notice of the act of bankruptcy, then the

transfer is good against the trustee.

In re Douglass, ex parte Snoivhall (1872), l. R. 7 Ch. 534 ;

here it was held that although, as a general rule, a power

of attorney must be treated as revoked by an act of bank-

ruptcy committed by the giver of the power as against the

trustee under a subsequent bankruptcy, still, if after the

act of bankruptcy, but before the adjudication, property

Is conveyed under the power to a bona fide purchaser who

has no notice of the act of bankruptcy, the purchaser may

hold the property as against the trustees.

Elliott V. Turquand (1881), 7 App. Cas. 79 ; here it was

held that, where an authority had been given previous to

an act of bankruptcy, by the bankrupts, to an agent in the

course of mutual dealings to receive the purchase-money of

their estate and to place it to account, and such authority

had been acted upon before notice of an act of bankruptcy,

that such authority was not revoked by the act of bank-

ruptcy ; that the payment was a rightful payment, and

that being so received, it became an item in the account

between the agent and the bankrupts before notice of any

act of bankruptcy ; and that the agent was entitled to set-

off (under the Bankruptcy Acts) against it, in an action

brought by the trustee in bankruptcy, a debt due from the

bankiupts to him.

It seems, however, that the bankruptcy of the principal

does not terminate his agent's authority to do a merely

ibrmal act of duty, for the completion of title — vide Dixon

V. Bwart (1817), 3 Mer. 322.

It seems doubtful, whether an authority coupled with an

interest, is revoked by the bankruptcy of the principal or not.

DETERMINATION OF AGENCY. 149

Hovill V. Lethiuaite (1804), o Esp. 157 ; here it was

held that an aiithorit}^ coupled with an interest was re-

voked by the bankruptcy of the principal.

Alley V. Hotson (1815), 4 Camp. 325 ; here Lord Ellen-

borough held that an authority coupled with an interest

was not revoked by the subsequent bankruptcy of the

principal.

In Story's Agency (9th ed. sect. 483), we find it stated

that an authority coupled with an interest is not revoked

by the bankruptcy of the principal.

With regard to the revocation of powers of attorney

by the bankruptcy of the principal — vide sections 8 and 9

of the Conveyancing Act, 1882, which are set out upon

pp. 136, 137, mite. Also vide section 47 of the Conveyancing-

Act, 1881, set out upon pp. 146, 147, ante.

It seems that the authority of an agent is also termi-

nated by his own bankruptcy.

Hudson V. Granger (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 27 ; here it was

held that the agent's bankruptcy terminated his authority

to receive any money on account of his principal.

(/) It may be terminated by the insanity of the

principal. It seems probable that the insanity of a princi-

pal terminates an authority given to an agent when sane,

provided that the insanity is of such a nature as to

render him utterly incapable of understanding what he