Agency.
202 Sect.
1,
In General. Limitation of apparent scope of authority must be
no
done by the agent in excess of the conditional or limited is binding on the principal as regards such persons as have (m) or ought to have («) notice of such excess of authority. But, in the absence of notice, the principal cannot, by any instructions to his agent, escape liability for acts done by the agent which fall within the apparent scope of his authority (o), act
authority
clear.
No
liability
for act
beyond apparent scope of authority.
Exception where principal accepts benefit of
unauthorised
432. Where, however, an act done by an agent is not done in the ordinary course of business (p) or falls outside the apparent scope of his authority {q), the principal is not bound by such act (7-), even if the opportunity to do it arose out of the agency (s), and it was purported to be done on his behalf {t), unless he expressly authorised it (a), or adopted it by taking the benefit of it (b) or otherwise (c). And in particular, where the agent obtains the money or property of a third person by means of any such act, the principal is not responsible, unless the money {d) or property (e) or the proceeds thereof (/) have been received by him (g), or have been applied for
act.
(m) Evans v. Kymer (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 528; Bodenham v. Hoshyns (1852), G. M. & G-. 903. {n) Hatch v. Searles (1854), 24 L. J. (CH.) 22 as where a limitation is usual in tlie particular business {Baines v. Ewing (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 320 Daun v. Simmvns (1879), 41 L. T. 783). For limitations on the powers of directors imposed by articles of association, compare Balfour v. Ernest (1859), 5 C. B. (isr. s.) 601, with Royal British Banh v. Turquand (1856), 6 E. & B. 327 and see, further, title Companies. Eor the effect of signatures by procuration and analogous signatures on bills of exchange etc., see Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 25, title Bills op Exchange etc. Lord (0) National Bolivian Navigation Co. v. Wilson (1880), 5 App. Cas. 176, Blackburn at p. 209 Trickett v. Tomlinson (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 663 Bake of Beaufort v. Neeld (1845), 12 CI. & F, 248 Davy v. Waller (1899), 81 L. T. 107; Edmunds y.Bushell (1865), L. R. 1 Q,. B. 97; Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526. Qucere whether it falls within an agent's apparent authority to represent the extent of his authority so as to bind his principal see London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 201, per Lord Heeschell at p. 220 and Lord Macnaghten at p. 226. Re Cunningham & Co., {j)) McGowan & Co. Y.Dyer (1873), L. E. 8 Q,. B. 141 Simpson's Claim (1887), 36 Ch. D. 532; Watkiny. Lamh (1901), 85 L. T. 483; Biggar v. Rock Life Assurance Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 516 Barnett v. South London Tramways Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 815; Qeorge Whitechurch, Ltd. v. Cavanagh, [1902] A. C. 117. (q) Linford v. Provincicd Horse and Cattle Lnsurance Co. (1864), 34 Beav. 291 Newlands v. Nationcd Employers' Accident Association (1885), 54 L. J. (q. b.) 428 Re Southport and West Lancashire Banking Co. (1885), 1 T. L. E. 204 Xenos Y. Wickham (1866), L. H. 2 H. L. 296. (r) Nor can it amount to an act of bankruptcy {Ex parte Blain, Re Saiuers (1879), 12 Ch. D. 622, per Brett, L.J., at p. 529). (s) Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated, [1906] A. C. 439. [t) See the cases cited in notes {p>) and (s) supra. (a) Chadburn v. Moore (1892), 61 L. J. (ch.) 674; Kilgour v. Eirdyson (1789), 2
De
1
Hy.
Bl. 156.
(b)
Jacobs
(c)
See
{d)
Bannatyne
V. Mori-is,
jDp.
173
[1902]
et seq.,
v.
1
Ch. 816, ^^^er
Vaughan Williams,
L.J., at p. 832.
ante.
McLver, [1906]
1
K. B. 103; Reid
v.
Rigby
&
Co., [1894] 2
Q. B. 40.
Glyn v. Baker (1811), 13 East, 509. (/) Marsh v. Keating (1834), 1 Bing. (n. c.) 198. See also Kettleiuell Y, {9) Glyn V. Baker, supra; Marsh v. Keating, supra. Ltefuge Assurance Co., [1907] 2 K. B. 242; Holdsiuorth v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Lnsurance Co. (1907), 23 T. L. E. 521. (e)
c-
