1 Parsons on Contracts, *41. Mr. Evans says: "General agents are

such as are authorized to transact all business of a particular kind;

whilst a special agent is authorized to act only in a single transac-

tion." Evans on Agency (Ewell's ed.) p. 2.

Mr. Wright says that the general agent "is usually a person to

whom the principal has entrusted the management of a particular

business, such as an estate agent, or the manager of a business;

while the special agent is an agent given authority to deliver a

particular message or buy a particular thing on one occasion, or

do some special thing, and has no implied authority aliunde from

his position or the nature of his business." Wright on Principal and

Agent, 2d ed. 87, 88.

Something of the distinction may be made clear by an illustra-

tion. If I have a business which I cannot conduct In person, I may

employ an agent to manage it for me. In the very nature of the

case, however, in conferring his authority, I must do so in general

terms. I cannot easily do more than to empower him to manage it

\ccording to his best judgment for my best interest. I cannot well

IS 14-17.] DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS. 13

go Into details and prescribe how he shall conduct himself and what

he shall do In all the multitudinous contingencies which may arise.

I must give him authority in general terms and leave the details to

his discretion. On the ether hand, if I need a hor . I may send a

person into the market to buy one only on condition that it shall be

of the age, size, color, weight, disposition, speed and price which I

prescribe. This case admits of special and particular instructions;

the other did not. The former, the business manager, would be a

general agent. The latter, who is to buy the horse, would be a spe-

cial agent. But suppose I say to an agent, ''Go into the market and

buy me a horse," and limit him neither as to age, size, color, price

or otherwise. What kind of an agent is he? He has general

power, but is to act only on a particular occasion. It is believed

that the nature cf his power is the chief criterion, and that the dis-

tinction between the special and the general agent is one of degree

merely and not of kind.

Formerly very important results were made to flow from this

distinction; but the modern tendency is to minimize it, if not to

Ignore it altogether.

See Butler v. Maples, 9 Wall. 766, Cas. Ag. 340; Loudon Savings

Fund Society v. Hagerstown Savings Bank, 36 Pa. St. 498, 78 Am.

Dec. 390, Cas. Ag. 371.

В§ 15. It has been said that a principal can

ha ve bu t onejiniYersa 1 agent, and it has been doubted

whether such an agency could practically exist. It can

only be created, if at all, by clear and unambiguous lan-

guage, and will not be inferred from any general ex-

pressions, however broad.

See Gulick v. Grover, 33 N. J. L. 463, 97 Am. Dec. 72S; Barr v.

Schroeder, 32 Cal. 609; Wood v. McCain, 7 Ala. 800, 42 Am. Dec. 612.

В§ 10. A principal may have several general

agents and as many special agents as occasion may

require.

В§ 17. The same person may at one time or in

regard to one transaction be a special agent of his prin-

cipal and at another time or in reference to other trans-

actions he may be a general agent. So, though he may

be authorized to act only in a particular case he may,

with respect of that transaction, have general power.