— Agency.
170 Sect.
Sect.
2.
Implied Authority to delegate.
When
delegation allowed.
Ministerial acts.
Implied Authority
2.
to delegate.
367. To the maxim Delegatus non potest delegare there are certain well-recognised exceptions, where an authority to delegate will be implied generally on the ground that there is no personal confidence reposed or skill required, and that the duties are capable of being equally well discharged by any person (/).
368. Such exceptions exist in the case of purely ministerial where no special discretion or skill is required {g), and of acts subsidiary to the main purpose Qi) thus authority to sign may in general be delegated (i) but in cases where an agent has implied authority to sign a contract for both parties {e.g., an auctioneer or acts,
broker) the signature of his clerk or traveller will not suffice Custom or usage.
{k).
369. Delegation is also permissible if it is in accordance with a reasonable custom or usage of trade, if not expressly forbidden (Z). A master of a foreign ship has been held justified in delegating the signing of a charter-party to a shipbroker {m). A country solicitor may employ his town agent, who will bind the client (n).
An agent cannot, however, depute his clerk to sign for his principal so as to satisfy the Statute of Frauds (o), though, without delegation, he may do through others necessary and subordinate acts, himself retaining the control {p). Acquiescence of principal.
370. Where the principal knows of the agent's intended delegation at the time of his employment, or subsequently acquiesces in it, or where the very nature of the employment necessitates a partial or total delegation, the rule can have no application {q).
Thus an English contractor for a railway in Canada, who was known not to be personally undertaking the work, was held entitled to
engage an agent (g).
(/) See note
(6), p.
And where
there
a ratification by the
is
169, ante.
Burial Board of St. Margaret, Rochester v. Thompson (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. Parker v. Kett (1701), 1 Ld. Eaym. 058 (delega445, 457 (delegation by sexton) tion by steward of manor). Ex parte {h) Re London and Mediterranean Banh (1868), 3 Ob. App. 651 Sutton (1788), 2 Cox, 84, wbere an agent was autborised to draw bills in the common course of business, and it was held that be could do this by means of bis clerk see Henderson v. Barneivall (1827), 1 Y. & J. 387 Murphy v. Boese (1875), L. E. 10 Excb. 126 London County Council v. HohUs (1896), 75 L. T. 687 Coles V. 2Vecoi/i?:c/c (1804), 9 Yes. 234; Hemming y. Hale (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 487; Rossiter v. Trafalgar Life Assurance Association (1859), 27 Beav. 377. ii) Mason Y. Joseph (1804), 1 Smith, 406; Lord v. Hall (1848), 2 C. & K. 698; Brown v. Tomhs, [1891] 1 d. B. 253. {h) Peirce v. 6V/(1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 210, 215 Bell y. Balls, [1897] 1 Cb. 663. (l) Be Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Cb. D. 286. (m) The Fanny (1883), 5 Asp. M. L. C. 75. See also Moon v. Guardians of Witney Union (1837), 3 Bing. (n. C.) 814. {n) Griffiths v. Williams (1787), 1 Term Eep. 710 ; Solley v. Wood (1852), 16 Beav. 370; Re Newen, [1903] 1 Cb. 812. (o) Blore v. Sutton (1816), 3 Mer. 237. See Doe d. Rhodes v. Robinson (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 677, and cases cited note (/c), supra. {p) Rossiter v. Trafalgar Life Assurance Association (1859), 27 Beav. 377. 232. {q) Quehec and Richmond Rail. Co. v. Quinn (1858), 12 Moo. P. C. C. (g)
