(t) Mumble v. Hunter, 12 Q. B. 310.

Principal subject to equities exit-ting between the agent and the other contractor.

Alternative liability of principal or agent.

(u) Ferrand v. Bischoffsheim, 4 C. B. N. S. 710, 717; Ramazotti v. Bowring, 7 C. B. N. S. 851.

(x) Above, p. 978.

(y) See Mollett v. Robinson, L. R. 7 C. P. 84, 119; Armstrong v. Stokes, L. R. 7 Q. B. 598, 605; above, p. 978.

(z) Parke, B., Beckham v. Drake, 9 M. & W. 79, 98.

(a) George v. Clagett, 7 T. R. 359; Sims v. Bond, 5 B. & Ad. 389, 393; Isberg v. Bowden, S Ex. 852, 859; Willes, J., Dreiser v. Norwood, 14 C. B. N. S. 574, 5S9; Expte. Dixon, 4 Ch. D. 133; Montagu v. Forwood, 1893, 2 Q. B. 350.

(b) Cooke v. Eshelby, 12 App. Cas. 271. But if the other contractor did enter into the agreement in this belief, he will not be deprived of this right by the mere fact that he had the means of knowing that the agent was acting for some principal; Borries v. Imperial Ottoman Bank, L. R. 9 C. P. 38.

(c) Above, pp. 977, 982.

(d) See above, p. 977.

In every case in which a contractor seeks to enforce an agreement, made with him by an agent, against the agent's principal, whether named in or upon making the contract or not, the onus lies on him of proving that the principal authorised or ratified the agent's act (l). And the principal is not liable upon any contract made by his agent without his authority (m), unless he choose to ratify the agent's act, if it be capable of ratification (n), or represented to the other contractor that the agent was authorised to act on his behalf (o). On the latter ground, where an agent is invested by his principal with an apparent or ostensible authority, the principal is bound by the agent's acts done within the scope of that authority, notwithstanding that he may have secretly limited (p) or revoked it (q). On this principle also, where an agent's authority is revoked by law, as in case of the principal's bankruptcy (r) or insanity (s), the principal or his estate is liable on contracts subsequently made by the agent with a contractor, who had no notice of the revocation of the authority. But this rule has not been applied in the case of revocation by the principal's death (t). Where an agent contracts on behalf of his principal, and the contract is within the terms of a written authority given to him, the principal is liable on the agreement, notwithstanding that in making the contract the agent was really acting for his own advantage and not in furtherance of his principal's interest; and this is equally the case, although the other contractor did not inquire as to or ask for the production of the agent's authority (u).

Where one contracts ostensibly on his own account and without authority to contract on behalf of some principal, the act cannot be ratified by any person as principal.

(e) Smethurst v. Mitchell, 1 E. & E. 622.

(f) Cf. above, pp. 745, 896.

(g) Priestly v. Fernie, 3 H. & C. 977; Calder v. Dobell, L. R. 6 C. P. 486, 499; Curtis v. Williamson, L R. 10 Q. B. 57; Morel v. Westmorland, 1904, A. C. 11; above, pp. 94:;, 969, 970.

(h) Wyatt v. Hertford, 3 East, 147; Horsfall v. Fauntleroy, 10 B. & C. 755; above, p. 983, n. (u).

(i) Heald v. Kenworthy, 10 Ex. 739, 745; Irvine v. Watson, 5 Q. B. D. 414; Davison v. Donaldson, 9 Q. B. D. 623.

{k) Keighley v. Durant, 1901, A. C. 240.

Contractor seeking to charge principal must prove that he authorised or ratified the agent's act.

Agent contracting within his authority hut in his own advantage.

(l) Above, pp. 977, 978, 980, 982: Godwin v. Brind, L. R. 5 C. P. 299, n.; limner v. Sharp, L. R. 19 Eq. 108; Rosenbaum v. Belson, 1900, 2 Ch. 267, 268; Hambro v. Burnand, 1903, 2 K. B. 399, reversed, 1904, 2 K. B. 10.

(m) Above, pp. 979, 981, 984; and previous note.

(n) Above, pp. 978, 980, 984.

(o) M' lver v. Humble, 16 East, 169, 174; and see Wms. Pers. Prop. 409, 15th ed.; and cases cited in the two next notes.

(p) Maddick v. Marshall, 16 C. B. N. S. 387, 17 C. B. N. S. 829; Edmunds v. Bushell, L. R. 1 Q. B. 97; National Bolivian, etc. Co. v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. 176, 209; Watteau v. Fenwick, 1893, 1 Q. B. 346; and see Montaignac v. Shitta, 15 App. Cas. 357; Brocklesby v. Temper-ance, etc. Bdg. Socy., 1895, A. C. 173.

(q) Trueman v. Loder, 11 A. & E. 589.

(r) Expte. McDonnell, Buck, 399; above, p. 649.

(s) Drew v. Nunn, 4 Q. B. D. 661; above, p. 649.

(t) Blades v. Free, 9 B. & C. 167; Smont v. Ilbery, 10 M. & W. 1, 11; above, p. 649; but see per Brett, L. J., Drew v. Nunn, 4 Q. B. D. 661, 668. In this case the agent would, it seems, be liable under the doctrine of implied warranty of authority; Halbot v. Lens, 1901, 1 Ch. 344, 349: above, p. 979.

Here it may be noted that if an owner of land instruct an estate agent to place it on his books and to find a purchaser for him, that does not authorise the agent to enter into an open contract for sale of the land, or indeed to make any firm contract for sale binding the principal (x). But definite instructions to sell the land authorise the estate agent to sign, on the principal's behalf, a memorandum of an open contract for sale (y).

Authority of an estate agent to make a contract of sale.

A servant of the Crown is not personally liable upon contracts made by him, even by deed (z), for the use or on account of the government (a). He cannot therefore be made liable in respect of any such contract under the doctrine of implied warranty of authority (b). If however the contract were made in his own name and were put in writing without any reference in the memorandum to the fact of his agency for government, he could not adduce parol evidence of the fact in order to escape liability (c).

Public servant contracting for the use of government.

(u) Hambro v. Burnand, 1904, 2 K. B. 10; cf. above, pp. 711, 864.

(x) Hamer v. Sharp, L. R. 19 Eq. 108; see also Saunders v. Dence, 52 L. T. 644, G46; Chad-burn v. Moore, 61 L. J. Ch. 674.

(y) Rosenbaum v. Belson, 1900, 2 Ch, 267.

(z) Unwin v. Wolseley, 1 T. R.

674; Allen v. Waldegrave, 8 Taunt. 566, 574; cf. above, p. 97S.

(a) Macbeath v. Haldimand, 1 T. R. 172; Gidley v. Palmerston, 3 Brod. & Bing. 275; Palmer v. Hutchinson, 6 App. Cas. 619.

(b) Dunn v. Macdonald, 1897, 1 Q. B. 401, 555.

(e) Above, p. 982.