——
Part
V.
—
Authority of the Agent.
161
Sect. 1. In no case, however, can be general {a) in its character. the authority of the agent exceed the power of the principal to act In General. on his o^Yn behalf (Z)). The authority, whether the agency be created expressly by Extent of authority. writing or be implied from conduct, is governed by rules which the in accordance with nature of the agent's define its scope employment and duties. As between the agent and his principal, the authority may be limited by agreement or special instructions, but as regards third persons the authority which the agent has is that w^hich he is reasonably believed to have, having regard to all the circumstances, but only that authority which is reasonably to be gathered from the nature of his employment and duties (c). The scope of the authority is therefore largely governed by the class of agent employed ((^), provided that he is acting within the limit of his ordinary avocation (<?) or by the relation of the agent to or by the customs of particular trades and the principal (/) professions (g). act, or
Sect. 2.
Construction of Authority.
Sub-Sect.
1.
Poiuers of Attorney.
351. The instrument conferring authority by deed is termed a power of attorney a document which is construed strictly by the
—
Courts, according to well-recognised rules
Eegard
is
had
first
(/z).
to the recitals which,
Powers
strictly.
showing the general
terms in the operative part of the deed (i). General words are construed as having reference only to the special powers (Zj), but include incidental powers necessary for
Kecitals.
object, control the general
See p. 152, ante. Shreiusbury and Birmingham Bail. Co. v. North Western Bail. Co. (1857), 6 H. L. Cas. at p. 133 Montreal Assurance Co. v. McGillivray (1859), 13 Moo. P. C. 0. 87; Ashhury Bailway Carriage and Iron Co. v. Biche (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 653. Corporations and incorporated companies can only enter into contracts within the powers of their charter, memorandum of association, or (a) (b)
Act
of
Parliament (see
p. 151, ante).
Brady v. Todd (1861), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 592 (a servant sent to deliver a horse has no implied authority to warrant it, and the person to whom it is delivered takes it at the risk that the servant had no authority in fact) Cox v. Midland Counties Bail. Co. (1849), 3 Exch. 268 (a stationmaster has no implied (c)
authority to pledge the credit of a railway company for medical attendance to in j iired passenger) a case of doubtful authority in these days and see Langan V. Greed Western Rail Co. (1873), 30 L. T. 173. See also pp. 201 et seq., post.
,
Auction' and Auctioneers and Stock Exchange. Simmins (1880), 41 L. T. 783. A broker who by a friend pledged diamonds of which he had the custody was not acting in the ordinary course of duty, and the pawnbroker was not protected by the Eactors Act {Be Gorter v. Attenhorough & Son (1904), 21 T. L. E. 19). (/) See, e.g., title Husband and Wife. Boiuring v. Shepherd (1871), L. E. (g) Sutton V. Tatham (1839), 10 A. & E. 27 6 Q.. B. 309. See title Stock Exchange. {h) Bryant, Powis and Bryant, Ltd. v. La Banque da Beuple, [1893] A. C. (d)
(e)
See, e.g., titles
Baun
v.
170, 177; Hoiuard v. Baillie (1796), 2 Hy. Bl. 618; Withington y. Herring (1829), 5 Bing. 442. For forms of power of attorney for various purposes, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. I., pp. 275 et seq. (0 Boolie V. Lord Ife^isinqton (1856), 2 K. Co. Danh/ v. Coutts J. 753, 769
&
(1885), 29 Ch. (/.)
Attwood
De a. F. & J. H.L.— I.
&
D. 500. V.
38,
(1827), 7 B. & 0. 278; Ferry v. Holl (1860), 2 Leivis v. Ramsdale (1886), 55 L. T. 179.
Munnings 48
of
attorney construed
M
General words.
