Interest in the thing which is the subject of agency. The doctrine was laid down with

great fullness and precision by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Hunt v. Rous-

maniere's Admrs., 8 Wheat. R. 291, by Mr. Justice Story, in the same case, on Cir-

cuit, 2 Mason's Rep. 244, and by Chan. Kent, in Bergen v. Bennett, 1 Caines' Cas. in

Error, 1. S. P. Knapp v. Alvord, 10 Paige's Rep. 205. Cassiday v, McKenzie, 4 Watta

& Serg. 282. Smyth v. Craig, 3 Watts & Serg. 14.

It is declared by statute in Maryland and Georgia, that a power of attorney shall

continue in force, tuitil the agent has notice of the death of his principal. The same

equitable rule prevails in all those countries whose jurisprudence is founded upon

the civil law, and there has been manifested a disposition in some modern cases to

Ingraft the same just and rational doctrine upoD the common law. Cassiday V. McKen-

zie, 4 Watts & Serg. 282 ; Beard v. Kirk, UN. Hamp. 397. The strictness of the

ancient rule was maintained in Tennessee, in the recent case of Rigs et al. v. Cage, 2

Hump. 350. A duly authorized agent had purchased goods in New York, after the

death of his principal, but in entire ignoranoe of the fact. The Court held, that the

death of the principal constituted an instantaneous and entire revocation of the

autliority of the agent, В«\nd that his subsequent acts, with whatever good faith pei'-

formed, were wholly void. In Cassiday v. McKenzie, 4 Watts & Serg., payment to an

ageijt after the death of the principal, both parties being ignorant of the fact, was

held to be good, and binding upon the estate of the principal. Mr. Justice Rogei-s,

In delivering the opinion of the Court, said: "But, finally, it is contended, that a

payment after the death of the principal is not good. It is conceded, that the death

of the principal is, ipso facto, a revocation of a letter of attorney. But does it avoid

all acts of the attorney intermediate between the death of the principal and notice

of it? In Salte v. Field, (5 Term Rep. 214,) Mr Justice Buller observes, ' It has "been

questioned, with respect to an agent acting under a power of attorney, whether acts

done by him before he knows of the revocation of his warrant, are good against the

principal ; and it seems that the principal, in such a case, could not avoid the acts

of his agent done bond fide, if they were to his advantage, though he might consent

to avoid suoh as were for his benefit. And in Hazard v. Treadwell, (Str. 506 ; 12

Mod. 346,) it is ruled that the credit, arising from an ostensible employment con-

tinues, at least with regard to those who have been accustomed to deal on the faith

of that employment, until they have notice of its being at an end, or till its termina

tion is notorious. And these are principles founded on the most obvious justice

Thus, if a man is the notorious agent for another, to collect debts, it is but reasona-

Dle that debtors should be protected in payments to the agent until they are informed

that the agency has terminated. But this, it is said, is only true of an agency

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 199

Rights of third Persons against Princioal.

a ship at sea executed a power to indorse the transfer on her certi-

ficate, and then became bankrupt, the power was held not revoked

by the bankruptcy. ( </) The effect of insanity upon the relation

(g) Dixon v. Ewart, 3 Meriv. 322. Buck. 94.

terminated by express revocation, and does not hold of an implied revocation by the

death of the principal. It would puzzle the most acute min to give any reason wh>