3. An agent is not entitled to delegate his authority,

so as to establish the relation of principal and ao-ent

between his own principal and a third party, without

his principal's authority to do so — " Delegatus non potest

delegare."

It seems, however, that where a principal has not

expressly authorized his agent to delegate his authority to

a sub-agent, that such an authority may nevertheless be

Implied from the conduct of the parties, from the nature

of the particular business, from the usage of a trade or

business, or from an unforeseen emergency or necessity.

T)e Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D. 28G. C. A., i^- 47 L. J.

Ch. 386 : in this case the plaintiff employed Gillman and

Compan}^ to sell a ship for the minimum price of 90,000

48 The law of agency.

dollars ; thereupon, with the plaintiff's consent, Gillman

and Company employed the defendant to sell it for them.

Defendant, however, bought the ship himself at the

minimum price, and then sold it for 160,000 dollars. The

Court held that the relationship of principal and agent had

been established between the plaintiff and defendant, and

that therefore the plaintiff could recover from defendant

the balance of 70,000 dollars. Thesiger, L.J., delivering

the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said ; " As a general

rule, no doubt, the maxim, ' Delegatus non potest delegare '

applies so as to prevent an agent from establishing the

relationship of principal and agent between his own prin-

cipal and a third person ; but this maxim, when analyzed,

merely imports that an agent cannot, without authority

from his principal, devolve upon another obligations to the

principal which he has himself undertaken personally to

fulfil ; and that inasmuch as confidence in the particular

person employed is at the root of the agency, such authority

cannot be implied as an ordinary incident in the contract.

But the exigencies of business do, from time to time, render

necessaiy the carrying out of instructions of a principal by

a person other than the agent originally instructed for the

purpose, and where that is the case the reason of the thing

requires that the rule should be relaxed, so as on the one

hand to enable the agent to appoint what has been termed

a sub-agent, or substitute ; and, on the other hand, to con-

stitute, in the interests and for the protection of the prin-

cipal, a direct privity of contract between him and^such

substitute. And we are of opinion that an authority to the

effect referred to may and should be implied, where, from

the conduct of the parties to tlie original contract of agency,

the usage of trade, or tliu nature of the particular business

which is the subject of tlie agency, it may reasonably be

prestimed that the parlies to the contract of agency origin-

ally intended that such authority should exist, or where in

tlie course of the employment unforeseen emergencies arise

RIGHTS OF A PRINCIPAL AGAINST HIS AGENT. 49

which imposed upon the agent the necessity of employing

a substitute ; and that when such authority exists and