Identity all the knowledge present in the mind of the agent,

whenever or however acquired, may be treated as the knowl-

edge of the principal. In other words, if P employs A, and

It hapi)ens that a possesses information affecting the trans-

action, P will be charged with this knowledge; whereas, if P

employs B, who happens not to possess such information,

P will not be charged with notice.

The subject of notice has, therefore, two branches : (1)

where the notice is acquired by the agent in the course of

the transaction in respect of which it is invoked ; (2) where

the notice is acquired by the agent outside of the transaction

1 The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 356; Hyatt v. Clark, 118

N. Y. 563.

2 Sheldon v. Cox, Amb. 624.

8 Kennedy v. Green, 3 Myl. & K. 699.

NOTlCIi TO AGENT. 187

in respect of wliich it is invoked, either (a) while he is agent,

or (b) before the agency begins.

В§ 142. Notice acquired during the transaction.

All the authorities agree that notice acquired by the agent

in the course of the transaction which it affects, is notice to

the principal. " The rule that notice to the agent is con-

structive notice to the principal, is based on the presumption

tliat the agent has connnunicated to the principal the facts

connected with the subject-matter of his agency which came

to his notice. . . . Where others than the principal and agent

are concei'ned, the presumption that the agent has discharged

his duty to his principal in communicating facts of which he

has notice, is as conclusive as the presumption that the princi-

pal remembers the facts brought home to him personally." ^

It therefore follows that as to notice acquired by the agent

In the course of the transaction in respect of which the notice

Is invoked, the principal is bound as fully as if he acquired

the notice in person, and whether the agent remembered the

fact at the final conclusion of the transaction or not.'-^

But if an agent is employed for a particular purpose, and

does not accomplish it, and subsequently another ^agent is

employed for the same purpose, and does accomplish it, notice

to the first agent, not communicated to the principal or to

the second agent, does not affect the transaction.^ So also

if an agent acquires notice in a transaction wholly foreign to

the one in question, his principal is not estopped within the

rule now under consideration.'*

В§ 143 Notice acquired outside of transaction but in general

scope of agency.

A distinction must be drawn between an agent, like an

attorney, who acts for his principal in totally different trans-

1 Bierce v. Red Bluff Hotel Co., 31 Cal. 160, 166.

2 Hiern v. Mill, 13 Yes. 114; Blackburn v. Haslam. 21 Q. B. D. 14-1;

Bavvden v. London, &c. Co., 1802, 2 Q. B. 534; Suit r. Woodhall, 113

Mass. 391 : Hill v. North, 34 Vt. 604.

8 Blackburn i\ Vigors, 12 App. Cas. 531 : Irvine r. Grady, 85 Tex. 120.

* Tate V. Ilyslop, 15 Q. B. D. 368; Union N. B. v. German Ins. Co.,

71 Fed. Rep. 473.

188 PRINCIPAL AND THIRD PARTY.

actions, perhaps separated by a considerable period of time,

and an agent, like a bank cashier or a general manager, who

is engaged in a continuous series of transactions, all incidents

of the conduct of a general business.

As to the first, it is believed that the rule as to notice is

the same as in the case where the notice is acquired before

the agency begins.

As to the second, the rule as established by many of the

courts is the same as in the case of notice acquired in the

particular transaction. " The general rule is well established

that notice to an agent of a bank, or other corporation, en-

trusted with the management of its business, or of a par-

ticular branch of its business, is notice to the corporation, in

transactions conducted by such agent, acting for the corpora-

tion, within the scope of his authority, whether the knowledge

of such agent was acquired in the course of the particular

dealing, or on some prior occasion." ^ "Where the agency