0' Grady V. Cardwell (1873), 21 w. 11. 340; here it was

licld that the Secretary of State for AVar is not liable to be

PUBLIC AGENTS. 153

sued for breacli of a contract entered into by him on behalf

of the War Department.

Palmer v. Hutchinson (1881), 6 App. Cas. 619 ; here

It was held that the defendant, who was her Majesty's

Deputy Commissary-General for Natal, could not be

sued either personally or in his official capacity upon a

contract entered into by him on behalf of the Commissariat

Department ; and that there was no cause of action against

him.

Dunn V. MacDoiiald (1897), 1 Q. B. 555. C. A. ; in this

case, Lopes, L. J., said ; " The liabilities of public agents on

contracts made by them in their public capacity are on a

different footing from the liabilities of ordinary agents on

their contracts. In the former case, unless there is some-

thing special which would be evidence of an intention to

be personally liable, an agent acting on behalf of a Govern-

ment is not liable for breach of a contract made in his public

capacity, even though he would, by the terms of the con-

tract, be bound if it were an agency of a private nature.

That is the law which has been established by a number of

cases for many years past."

Lord Esher, M.R., also said ; " No action lies against a

public servant upon any contract which he makes in that

capacity, and an action will only lie upon an express personal

contract."

The Government is never liable for torts committed by

Its agent or servants. Such agents or servants, however,

are, equally with private ones, themselves personally liable

for their own tortious acts.

Lane v. Cotton (1701), 1 Ld. Ray. 646 ; here an action

was brought against the Postmaster-General for the loss of

a letter, containing exchequer bills, through the negligence

of his servants. Three judges against one held that the

plaintiff could not recover.

Whitfield V. Lord le Despcncer (1778), 2 Cowp. 754 ;

154 TEE LAW OF AGENCY.

here it was held that the plaintiff could not recover from

the Postmaster-General the amount of a bank-note, stolen

out of a letter by one of the letter-sorters.

Boivnmg v. GoodcJtild (1773), 2 W, Bl. 909 ; here it was

held that a deputy-postmaster was personally liable for

non-delivery of letters gi'atis in a country post-town.

In delivering the judgment of the Court, De Gray, C. J.,

said ; " We think that in aU cases deputies are answerable for

their own personal misfeasance, such as detaining the letters

in question ; and in the present case the deputies are made

by the Act of Parliament, ex necessitate rei, substantive

olBcers, and their duty pointed out as such. And it is

better for the subject to resort to them for satisfaction for

injuries done by themselves than to their principals."

Nicholson V. Mouncey (1812), 15 East. 3S4< ; here it was

held that the captain of a man-of-war was not liable for

damage done by her running down another vessel, through

the negligence or default of a subordinate officer, who, at the

time of the accident, had the actual direction and manage-

ment of the ship.

If the Crown ratifies the act of its agent or servant, such

agent or servant is freed from all personal liability.

Buron v. Denman (1848), 2 Ex. 1G7; in this case,

Parke, B., said ; " If an individual ratifies an act done on his

behalf, the nature of the act remains unchanged ; it is still

a mere trespass, and the party injured has his option to sue

cither : if the Crown ratifies an act, the character of the

act becomes altered ; for the ratification does not give the