—
.
Duration and Termination of Agency.
Part XI.
231
Sect. 3. revoked (h). But a revocation after partial exercise of the authority will be ineffective (c) unless the authority is severable into parts, so Termination -^ct that the unexecuted parts may be countermanded (d). Part ies, Money paid to an agent by his principal, under authority to devote it to a specific purpose, is recoverable at any time before Authority to that purpose has been carried out (e), even though paid to abide the pay money, event of a wager ( /). But where the principal has given the agent authority to make a payment of money, and a sum has been appropriated under an agreement with the payee (g), or where the circumstances are such that the payee has obtained an equitable assignment of such sum (li), the principal cannot afterwards revoke the authority to make such payment.
484. The revocation need not necessarily be by formal instru- Mode of A deed may be revoked by word of mouth (^), or the principal revocation, may intervene in the course of negotiations {k) but until some such action of the principal is taken the agent is justified in assuming
ment.
the continuance of the agency
(/)
485. As far as the principal and agent themselves are concerned, Termination the agency, whether created by power of attorney (m) or in any other by agreement, way, may prima facie be terminated at will (n), and in any case may be so terminated subject to any claim for damages for breach of contract (o). Warwick v. Slade (1811), 3 Camp. 127 and see The Vindobala (1889), 6 Asp. But see Thompson v. Adams (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 361,i>er Mathew, J., at p. 36a (slip a binding contract in fire insurance, the Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 23), not applying) Campanari v. Woodburn and compare Bead v. Anderson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 779. (1854), 15 C. B. 400 (b)
M. L.
C. 376.
Daij V. TFells (1861), 30 Beav. 220. Bristotu v. Taijlor (1817), 2 Stark. 50. Brummell v. M'Pherson (1828), 5 Euss. (e) Taylor v. Lendey (1807), 9 East, 49 263 Gibson v. Minet {1824), 9 Moo. C. P. 31 Edgar y. Foiuler (1803), 3 East, 222 and see Taylor y. Bowers (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 291. (/) Smith V. Bickmore (18 2), 4 Taunt. 474 Hasteloiu v. Jackson (1828), 8 B. & Varney v. Hickman (1847), 5 C. B. 271 Bigqle v. Higgs (1877), 2 Ex. D. C. 221 422 Trimble v. Hill (1879), 5 App. Cas. 342 Gatty v. Field (1846), 9 Q. B. 431 Hampden v. Walsh (1876), 1 Q.B. D. 189. There is nothing in the Gaming Act, 1892 (55 Yict. c. 9), which alters this rule. See O'Sullivan v. Thomas, [1895] 1 Q.B. 698 Biirge v. Ashley and Smith, [1900] 1 Q. B. 744; Shoolbredy. Roberts, [1900] 2 Q. B. 497. ((/) Burn V. Carvalho (1839), 4 My. & Cr. 690; Dickinson v. Marroiv (1845), 14 M. & W. 713 Croiufoot v. Gurney (1832), 9 Bing. 372. Fisher v. Miller (1823), 7 {h) Robertson v. Fauntleroy (1823), 8 Moo. C. P. 10 Moo. C. P. 527 Walker v. Rostron (1842), 9 M. & W. 41 1 Hutchinson v. Heyiuorth Chartered Bank of India v. Fvans (1869), 21 L. T. 407. (1838), 9 A. & E. 375 {i) The Margaret Mitchell (1858), 4 Jur. (n. s.) 1193; R. v. Wait (1823), 11 Price, 518. {k) Atkinson v. Cotesiuorth (1825), 3 B. & C. 647 Smith v. Plummer (1818), 1 (c)
(d)
1
•
B.
&
A. 575.
{I) Re Oriental Bank, Ex parte Guillemin (1884), 28 Ch. D. 634. The authority revoked by the winding up of a company of which its agent has no notice. (m) Bromley v. Holland {1802), 7 Ves. 3, perELDON, L.O., at p. 28 Ex parte Smither (1836), 1 Deac. 413. (?i) Henry v. Lowson (1885), 2 T. L. E. 199; 3Iotion v. Michaud (1892), 8 T. L. E. 253, affirmed 447 Joynson v. Hunt (1905), 93 L. T. 470 Barrett v. Gilmour
is
(1901),
6
amounts (o)
Com. Cas. 72;
Olerk v.
Lattrie (1857),
2
H.
& N.
199 (as to what
to a revocation).
As between
the principal and third parties, see p. 235, post.
