1 Camp. 85.

(s) See Dyer v. Pearson, 3 B. <fe C. 38. Hazard v. Treadwell, 1 Str. 506. Todd v.

Robinson, 1 R. <fe M. 217. Oilman v. Robinson, ibid 226. Boulton v. Arlesden, Sal.

234. Anderson V. Sanderson, 2 Stark. 204. Stubbing V. Heintz, Peake, 47. Wey-

land's case, 3 Sal. 234. Rusby v. Scarlett, 5 Esp. 76. See Smith v. Topping, 5 B. В«4

M. 674. Davidson v. Stanley, 2 M. & Gv. 721.

(t) Hazard v. Treadwell, 1 Str. 506.

172 Jiercantile persons.

Rights of third Persons against Principal.

bd no inference of authority : in such a case, the party who trusts

a servant, does it at his peril, since the master will only be liable

for what comes to his use ; and not even for that, if he gave his

servant money to pay for it;(M) and, as the employment is the

measure of the authority, an employment in one line of business

affords no inference of authority to act in another, (v) and the au-

thority must be inferred by fects which have occurred during the

course of such employment, not from mere argument as to the

utility or propriety of the agent's possessing it. (iv)

Thus, though a clerk or apprentice may have an implied -au-

thority to receive money for his master in the course of business,

yet that will give him no authority to receive it in collateral trans-

actions out of the ordinary course of business, (x) And thus also,

though a master when abroad, or even at home, in case of neces-

sity, (y) has an implied authority to borrow money for the purposes

of the ship, and may therefore bind his owner by contracting a

loan for those purposes, yet, if he borrow money on his own ac-

count, and afterwards apply it to the purposes of the ship, that is

no exercise of his authority, and his master is not bound to repay

that money. (2)

It follows from the above observations, that an agent may be

tied down by very strict directions, as between himself and princi-

pal, wbom he may, notwithstanding, have power to bind by con-

tracts, unauthorized by, and even in defiance of them. Cases of

this sort occur, when a general agent^ as he is called, exceeds his in-

structions. A general agent is a person whom a man puts in his

place to transact all his business of a particular kind : thus a man

usually retains a factor to buy and sell all goods, and a broker to

negotiate all contracts of a certain description, an attorney to trans-

act all his legal business, a master (a) to perform all things relating

(m) See Pale}-, P. & A. lG-4. 1 Ld. Raym. 225. Kilgour v. Finljson, 1 H. Bl. 155.

{v) See Boucher v. Lawson, Rep. temp. Hardwicke, 85.

{w) Hawtaj-ne v. Bourne, 7 M. & W. 598.

{x) Sanderson v. Bell, 2 Cr. & Mee. SO-i.

(7/) Arthur v. Barton, 6 M. & W. 138. "Weston v. Wright, 7 M. & W. 396.

{z) Thacker v. Moates, 1 M. & Rob. 79.

{a) The authority of a master is very extensive. See Rinquist v. Ditchell, Abb.

p 2, c. 2. Ellis V. Turner, 8 T. R. 531 ; Abb. p. 2, c. 3. And see particularly Arthur

PEINCIPAL AND AGEXT. 173

Rights of third Persons against Principal.

to the usual employment of his ship, and so in other instances.

The authority of such an agent to perform all things usual in the

line of business in which he is employed, cannot be limited by any

private order or direction, not known to the party dealing with

him. {b) But the rule is directly the reverse concerning ВЈ(. particular

agent, i. e. an agent employed specially in one single transaction,

for it is the duty of the party dealing with such an one, to ascertain

the extent of his authority ; and if he do not, he must abide the

consequences, (c)