667, -Where a bill drawn on Bruce, Shand & Co., having been transmitted to Alexan-

der & Co. by the holders, with instructions to do the needful, and having been dis-

honored by non-acceptance, it was held that A. & Co. had no authority to receive

payment of it after protest, and that the money so paid did not become the holder's.

{d) Ward V. Evans, Sal. 442. Comb. 450 ; Ld. Raym. 980. Maclean v. Dunn, 4

Bingh. 122. Henderson v. Barnwall, 1 Y. & J. SS*?. Fenn v. Harrison, 3 T. R. 757 ;

4 T. R. 177. Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 236, 251, 252 ; but the assent must be given

to the act really done by the agent, and not to one which he is falsely represented

to have done. Horsefall v. Fauntleroy, 10 B. & C. 755.

(e) Thorold v. Smith, 11 Mod. 88. Howard v. Baillie, 2 H. Bl. 618. Wilson v,

Poulter, 2 Str. 859. Smith v. Hodscn, 4 T. R. 211 ; B. N. P. 131.

(/) Wilson V. Poulter, 2 Str. 159. Billon v. Hyde, 1 Atk. 128. Smith v. Hodson,

4 T. R. 211. Hovil V. Pack, 7 East, 146,

(^f) Gardiner v. Baillie, 6 T. R. 591. Tobin v. Crawford, 5 M. & W. 235. Aeey u.

Fernie, 7 M. &, W. 151. Co. Litt. 258, b. It is said, that if an agent do more than

he is authorized, the act is bad for the excess only, provided that can be distinguished ;

if he do no less, bad altogether, except in cases where his authority is co apled with

an interest. See Co. Litt. 258, b. Alexander v. Alexander, 2 Ves. 644.

Ih) Co. Litt. 112, b; 181, b; 1 Roll. Abr. 329; 1 And. 145.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 175

PJglits of third Persons against Principal.

technical precision of ancient times in construing tliese and tlie like

words, and will search the whole instrument for the maker's inten-

tion ; {i) but, where that is once ascertained, they will confine the

agent to it with the utmost strictness. (/)*

At the same time, the courts are so far liberal in construing

authorities given to agents, that they will hold them to include per-

mission to use all necessary, or even usual means, of carrying the

main intention of the principal into effect in the best manner : {Ic)

thus, an agent employed to get a bill discounted may, perhaps,

unless expressly restricted, indorse it in the name of his employ-

er : (f) a broker employed to effect a policy of insurance may adjust

(i) Guthrie v. Armstrong, 5 B. <fe A. 628.

(j) Barron v. Fitzgerald, 6 Bingh. N. C. 201, -where an authority to Barron and

Stewart, to effect an insurance in their own two names, was lield not to warrant the

effecting one in the names of Barron, Stewai't, and Smith, whom they had taken into

partnership. Attwood v Munnings, 7 B. <fe C. 278, an important case, but which can-

not be satisfactorily abridged. Hogg v. Snaith, 1 Taunt. 3-47. Murray v. E. I. Compy,,

5 B. Cfe a. 204. Esdaile V. La Nauze, 1 y. & Coll. Fearn V. Filica, 7 m, & Gr.

513. Agent to pay and receive cannot indorse bills. Davidson V. Stanley, 2 m. &

Gr. 721.

{k) Richardson v. Anderson, 1 Camp. 43, n. Goodson v. Brooke, 4 Camp. 163.

Withington v. Herring, 5 Bingh. 442. Ducarry v. Gill, 1 M. & M. 450. Alexander v.

Gibson, 2 Camp. 555, et notan. Helyar v. Hawke, 6 Esp. 72. Runquist v. Ditchell, 3

Esp. 65. See Hicks v. Ilankin, 4 Esp. 114. Whitehead v. Tuckett, 15 East, 400.

Ellis В«. Turner, 8 T. R. 531.

(0 Fenn v. Harrison, 4 T. R. 177 ; 3 T. R. 757.

* Agents are either joint or several. It is a general rule of the common law, that

when an authority is given to two or more to do an act, all the agents must concur