In consequence of his order given to a commission merchant

at New Orleans, or between a New York merchant and the

supplier of every bale of goods purchased in consequence of

an order to a London commission merchant, is so obvious

and well known, that we are justified in treating it as a

matter of law, and saying that, in the absence of evidence

of an express authority to that effect, the commission agent

cannot pledge his foreign constituent's credit."

Hidton V. Bullock (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 572; here the

principle laid down in Armstrong v. StoJces, uhi supra, was

confirmed, and Brett, J., held that when a foreign merchant

residing abroad dealt in England through an English cor-

respondent or agent, it was not in the ordinary course for

the foreign merchant to authorize the English agent to

bind him to the English contract.

Malcolm Flinn and Company v. Hoyle (1893), 63 L. J.

Q. B. 1. C. A, ; here Lopes, L. J., said ; " It has been held for

the sake of mercantile usage and convenience that an agent

dealing in goods with a merchant resident abroad cannot,

without evidence of express authority to that effect, pledge

his foreign correspondent's credit, and therefore must get

trust in person. That, no doubt, is the rule ; but I cannot

see that it has any application to the contract in this case.

There is nothing in the rule, I need scarcely say, to prevent

the foreign merchant from himself contracting with the

other merchant ; and the question is, whether in this case

the foreign merchant did not so contract with the merchant

in this country. I am clearly of opinion that he did."

It seems, however, that even when an agent is contract-

ing for a foreign principal, the presumption in favour of the

agent's liability may be easily rebutted ; and that it really

becomes a question of fact, depending upon the particular

circumstances of each case, whether the agent is personally

liable or not.

104 TBE LAW OF AGENCY.

Gadcl V. HourjUon (1876), 1 Ex. Div. 857. C. A. {vide p. 85,

ante) ; here the Court of Appeal held that the words " On

account of James Morand and Company," contained in a

written contract, showed that the defendants (the brokers)

intended to pledge exclusively the credit of their foreign

principal ; and that they were not themselves liable upon

the contract.

Beynolds and Comjmny v. Peapes (1890), 6 T. L. H. 49 ;

here the defendants, who resided in Sydney, employed an

agent to buy for them in England. In giving judgment,

Mathew, J., said ; " Though the foreign principal in such a

case is prima facie not liable, yet this presumption is liable

to be rebutted."

Halm v. The North German Pitwood Compiany (1892), 8

T. L. R. 557 {vide p. 87, ante) ; here it was held that an

agent was not liable upon a contract which he had signed

" as agent," even though he had signed as agent for a

foreign principal.

Glover v. Langford (1892), 8 T. L. R. 628 {vide p. 87, ante)'^

here Charles, J., in giving judgment, said; "In referring to

the other cases, it appears that in point of law there is no dis-

tinction as to the liability of an agent acting on behalf of

an English or a foreign principal ; it is always a question of

fact ; though no doubt the circumstance that an Englishman