Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/22

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
6
HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

in person. Certainly the argument is strong that such evidence varies the writing, and if the Statute of Frauds applies, that the statute is not satisfied unless the name of the principal appears. Yet the contrary has been decided. The step was taken almost sub silentio.[1] But when at last a reason was offered, it turned on, or at least was suggested by, the notion of the identity of the parties. It was in substance that the principal "is taken to have adopted the name of the [agent] as his own, for the purpose of such contracts," as it was stated by Smith in his Leading Cases, paraphrasing the language of Lord Denman in Trueman v. Loder.[2]

I gave some evidence, at the beginning of this discussion, that notions drawn from the familia were applied to free servants, and that they were extended beyond the domestic relations. All that I have quoted since tends in the same direction. For when such notions are applied to freemen in a merely contractual state of service it is not to be expected that their influence should be confined to limits which became meaningless when servants ceased to be slaves. The passage quoted from Bracton proved that already in his day the analogies of domestic service were applied to relations of more limited subjection. I have now only to complete the proof that agency in the narrower sense, the law familiar to the higher and more important representatives employed in modern business, is simply a branch of the law of master and servant.

First of the attorney. The primitive lawsuit was conducted by the parties in person. Counsel, if they may be called so, were very early admitted to conduct the formal pleadings in the presence of the party, who was thus enabled to avoid the loss of his suit, which would have followed a slip on his own part in uttering the formal words, by disavowing the pleading of his advocate. But the Frankish law very slowly admitted the possibility of giving over the conduct of a suit to another, or of its proceeding in the absence of the principals concerned. Brunner has traced the history of the innovation by which the appointment of an attorney (i. e., loco positus) came generally to be permitted, with his usual ability. It was brought to England with the rest of the

  1. Bateman v. Phillips, 15 East, 272 (1812); Garrett v. Handley, 4 B. & C. 664 (1825); Higgins v. Senior, 8 M. & W. 834, 844 (1841).
  2. 11 Ad. & El. 595; s. c. 3 P. & D. 267, 271 (1840); 2 Sm. L. C, 8th ed., 408, note to Thompson v. Davenport; Byington v. Simpson, 134 Mass. 169, 170.