—
—
Relations between Agent and Third Persons.
Part X.
Further, the agent
is
personally liable on the contract
if
it
221 is
shown that he is the real principal (g), or that the'principal named by him is non-existent (li) or incapable of making the contract in question
is
Sect.
i.
Liabilities
of Agent,
(i).
465. Moreover, an agent who executes a deed in his (^n name personally liable upon it, whether he discloses the name and
Deeds executed by agent.
existence of his principal or not (k). In respect of bills of exchange, cheques, and promissory notes Bills of signed by an agent on his principal's behalf, the agent is not liable exchange etc. unless he signs his own name {I), in which case he is personally liable even though he adds to his signature words describing him as an agent (m), unless he makes it perfectly clear that he is signing only on his principal's behalf (n). He is not liable upon any acceptance in his own name, unless the bill was in fact drawn upon him (o), in which case he is liable though he purports to accept merely as agent (p). In the case of any other written contract signed by the agent in Signed conhis own name, but purporting to be made on behalf of a named gg^^gpaiiy principal, the agent is not personally liable, unless from -the terms of the contract it appears that such was the intention of the parties ((^). But where the principal is a limited company, any Agent for agent signing a contract on its behalf is personally liable, if he ^^^^^^^^ ^o^omits the name of the company or the word " limited " from the contract (r). Stjb-Sect,
On Warranty of
2.
Authority.
466. Where any person purports to do any act or make any con- Warranty on behalf of a principal, he is deemed to warrant (s) ^^P^^^^-
tract as agent
Jenkins v. Hutchinson (1849), 13 Q. B. 744, per Lord Denman, C. J., at p. 752. Kelner v. Baxter (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 174; Scott v. Lord Ehury (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 255; Wilson y. Baler (1901), 17 T. L. E. 473, unless the other contracting party did not intend to accept the agent's liability {Jones v. Hope (1880) 3 T. L. E. 247; Steele v. Oourley (1887), 3 T. L. E. 772; and see Bailey v. Macaulay (1849), 13 Q. B. 815). Compare also cases cited in note {i), {g)
(A)
,
p. 219, ante,
12 T. L. E. 502. Hancoclc v. Hodgson (1827), 4 Bing. East, 148 269; Cass v. Rudele (1692), 2 Yern. 280; Chapman y. Smith, [1907] 2 Ch. 97. But a public agent is not liable on a contract under seal made on behalf of the Crown {Unwin v. Wolseley (1787), 1 Term Eep. 674; see, however, contra, (i)
Queensland Investment Co.
v. 0' Gonnell (1896),
[h] Ap-pleton v. BinJcs (1804), 5
Cunningham
v. Collier (1785),
4 Doug. 233).
BiUs of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 &46yict. c. 61), s. 23. See, further, title Bills of Exchange etc. (m) Ihid., s. 26 (1) The Elmville, [1904] P. 319. {n) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 26 (1); Aggs v. Nicholson (1856), 1 H. & N. 165; Alexander v. Sizer (1869), L. E. 4 Exch. (1)
102. (o) Okell V. Charles (1876), 34 L. T. 822; Dermatine Co. v. Ashiuorth (1905), 21 T. L. E. 510. (p) Jones Y. Jackson (1870), 22 L. T. 828; Mare v. Charles (1856), 25 L. J.
(Q. B.) 119. {q) Norton v. Herron (1825), 1 C. & P. 648; and compare McCollin v. Gilpin, (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 516, with Doionman v. Williams (1845), 7 Q. B. 103, Ex. Ch. (r) Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Yict. c. 89), s. 42. (s) Unless he is a public agent contracting on behalf of the Crown (Dunn v. Macdonald, [1897] 1 Q. B. 555).
