— Part VII.
— Ratification.
by acquiescence ratify such an act the circumstances (0).
they have a
if
175 full
knowledge
of
Sect.
2.
Acts capable of
380. The
illegality of an act will not of itself prevent its ratifica- Ratification, trespass or assault committed by a servant is capable of being ratified by the employer (q), but a principal or employer is, ^JJg^^^^^ in such a case, only liable to the extent of the acts he has ratified (r). An act tortious ah initio may be ratified, as where agents wrongfully seized possession of a stranded ship, and the principals wrote but the receipt of money, the proceeds of in terms of approval (s) an illegal distress, is not a sufficient ratification of the illegal acts of the agent levying the distress, unless the principal has knowledge
tion (p).
A
of
the
illec^ality {t).
The holder dishonour by
exchange
may
avail himself of notice of another person (a) and the unauthorised institution of legal proceedings may be ratified (b). of a bill of
ratification of the act of
Sect.
381. The
3.
Notice of dishonour,
ceedfngr"
Conditions of Ratification.
essential to an agency by ratification is that the Act must be agent shall not be acting for himself, but shall intend to bind a ^^JJ^j^^^^ named or ascertainable principal, and one who is actually in principal, first
when the act is done (c). If A. wrongfully own use, B. cannot ratify the act (d). made by one professing to act on his own behalf.
existence at the time seizes a chattel for his
A
Act done by contract at the time he has the intention of giving the benefit of the Pf^" , contract to an undisclosed principal, cannot be ratified by that on his own person so as to give him the status of principal and the right to sue behalf, on the contract ((?), unless in some way the principal's name was used in the first instance (/). So a contract made professedly on behalf of a volunteer corps cannot be ratified by individual members or ofiicers of the corps (g).
though
Evans v. (0) London Financial Association v. KeJk (1884), 26 Ch. D. 107 Smallcombe (1868), L. E. 3 H. L. 249. See MacJae v. Sutherland (1854), 3 E. & B. 1; Be the Maydalena Steam Navigation Co. (1860), 29 L. J. (CH.) 667; Phosphate of Lime Co. v. Green (1871), L. E. 7 C. P. 43; Renter v. Electric Telegra.ph Co. (1856), 6 E. & B. 341. {]>) Hull V. PicJcersgill (1819), 1 B. & B. 282. Iq) Eastern Counties Rail. Co. v. Broom (1851), 6 Exch, 314. (r) Hastier v. Lemoyne (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 530; Lewis v. Read (1845), 13 M. & W. 834; Knight v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. (1898), 14 T. L. E.
286. (s)
[t)
{a)
HilUry v. Hatton (1864), 2 H. & C. 822. Freeman y. Rosher (1849), 13 Q. B. 780. Chapman v. Keane (1835), 3 A. & E. 193; and BiUs
1882 (45 (6)
&
46 Vict.
Ancona
v.
c. 61), s.
Marks
(1862), 7
H. & N.
Exchange Act,
686.
Wilson V. Tumrnan (1843), 12 L. J. (c. tion V. Winchelsea (1891), 7 T. L. E. 362 (c)
of
49. P.)
306; Royal Albert Hall Corporav. Joseph, [1897] 1 Ch.
Marsh
213.
Wilson V. Barler (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 614. Keighley Maxsted & Co. v. Hurant, [1901] A. C. 240; Heathy. Chilton (1844), 12 M. & W. 632 (an executor cannot ratify a contract made by his two co-executors on their own behalf). {/) Re Tiedemann and Ledermann Freres, [1899] 2 Q. B. 66. and see Saunderson v. Griffiths (g) Jones v. Hope (1880), 3 T. L. E. 247 (1826), 5 B. & C. 909. {d) (ft)
