In re Oriental Bank (1884), 28 Ch. D. 634; here

Chitty, J., said ; " Unquestionably'" advice is required in

order to terminate the authority of an agent where the

revocation is by the act of the principal. The cases of

revocation by bankruptcy and death stand on a different

footing."

We find in Story on Agency (0th ed. sect. 470), " As

to the agent himself, subject to what has been already

stated, it (revocation) takes effect from the time when the

revocation is made known to him ; and as to third parties

138 The law of agency.

when it is made known to them, and not before. Until,

therefore, the revocation is so made known, it is in-

operative.' '

With regard to third parties, it is clear that a principal

cannot privately revoke an authority which he has publicly

given ; for an authority revoked by act of party can only

affect third parties from the time the revocation is made

known to them, and not before.

Scarfe v. Jardine (1882), 7 App. Cas. 345 ; here Lord

Blackburn said ; " Where a person has given authority to

another, the authority being such as would apparently

continue, he is bound to those who act upon the faith of

that authority, though he has revoked it, unless he has

given proper notice of the revocation."

Dehcnham v. Mellon (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 403, & 6 App.

Cas. 24 ; here it was laid down that if a husband has

habitually allowed his wife to pledge his credit with a

tradesman, he will be liable upon her contracts until the

tradesman has received notice of the termination of such

authority.

Cases where there is an Actual Contract to employ Agent. —

Of course there is a great distinction between a principal

merely giving an agent authority to act for him and a

principal actually contracting to emj^loy an agent to act for

him. Where a principal actually contracts to employ an

agent for a definite period, or to employ him to do an

entire piece of work, as where a captain is employed to

navigate a ship on a particular voyage, then the principal

would be liable for breach of contract, if he dismisses the

agent from such employment. And even if the principal

only contracts to employ the agent indefinitely, provided

there is an actual contract to employ, he will, in the absence

of custom or special agrccinent to the contrary, be liable

for breach of contract, if he dismisses him from such em-

ployment without giving him a reasonable notice.

RhodcH V. FoTv-ood (187^i), 1 App. Cas, 256 ; here a

DETEEMINATION OF AGENCY. 139

colliery owner agreed with certain merchants in Liverpool

to employ them for seven years as his sole agents for his

coal in Liverpool, at a commission ; and they agreed to act

for no other principal at Liverpool in that business for the

seven years. Before the seven years had expired, the

colliery owner sold his colliery, and ceased to employ the

said agents, who brought an action for damages for breach

of contract. The House of Lords held that though the

principal, so long as he carried on that particular business