38 Appointment of agents. [в§в§ 63-64.

their authority, in the same way, and it would appear in the same

form, as any individual person is." Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v.

Vandiver (1862), 42 Pa. St. 365.

See Burrill v. Bank, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 163, 35 Am. Dec. 395; Noble-

boro v. Clark, 68 Me. 87, 28 Am. Rep. 22; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v.

South, etc., R. Co., 84 Ala. 570, 5 Am. St. Rep. 401; Williams v.

Fresno Canal Co., 96 Cal. 14, 31 Am. St. Rep. 172; Scofield v. Parlln

& Orendorff Co., 61 Fed. Rep. 804, 18 U. S. App. 692, 10 C. C. A. 83.

В§ 64. 2. Authority required by statute to be in

writing. — In very many of the States, by statute (the

.statute of frauds or its equivalent) an agent to sell,

mortgage or lease lands or any interest therein (other,

usually, than leases for not more than one year), can

be authorized only by an instrument in writing.

Thus the statute in Michigan (Comp. L. 1897, §§9509, 9511) de-

clares that "No estate or interest in lands, other than leases for a

term not exceeding one year, nor any trust or power over or con-

cerning lands, or in any manner relating thereto, shall hereafter be

created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared, unless by act

or operation of lav;, or by deed or conveyance in writing, sub-

scribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or

declaring the same, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully

authorized by writing." And "Every contract for the leasing for a

longer period than one year, or for the sale of any lands, or any in-

terest in lands, shall be void, unless the contract, or seme note or

memorandum thereof, be in writing, and signed by the party by

whom the lease or sale is to be made, or by some person thereunto

by him lawfully authorized by writing." Statutes substantially sim-

Ilar are found in Alabama, California, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, and

other States.

Not all of the States, however, have such statutes. Thus, Wis-

consin, for example, while it has a statute identical with the first

sei ion quoted above from Michigan, omits the words "by writing"

at the close of the second one. Indiana and Iowa do the same, and

there are various distinctions in other States which it is not prac-

ticable to reproduce here. The statute in each State must be con-

sulted whenever this general question arises. See, for example,

Lccg t. Hartwell, 34 N. J. L. 116, Agency Cases, 92; Malone v. Mc-

Cullough, 15 Colo. 460; Kozei v. Dearlove, 144 111. 23, 36 Am. St.

Rep. 416; White v. Breen, 106 Ala. 159, 19 So. Rep. 59, 32 L. R. A.

127; Alabama, etc., r. Co. V. South, etc., r. Co., 84 Ala. 570, 5 Am.

St Rep. 401.

§§ 64-67.] APPOINTMENT OF AGENTS. .".0

The policy of the law may extend this rule to other

cases. Thus, in Kentucky it is enacted thai "No per-

son shall be bound as the surety of another by the art

of an agent unless the authority of the agent is in writ-