V. Anderson, 3 b- & c. 842.

(k) Pearson v. Graham, 6 Ad. & Ell. 900. Kynaston v. Crouch, 14 M. & W. 266.

(0 Dig. 50, tit. IT.

(m) Dig. 17, tit. 1.

(n) Pythier de Mandat. N. 121. See the subject discussed and all the authorities

eoUected. Story, p. 424, et seq.

(o) Seton V. Slade, 7 Ves. 276. See Dickenson v. Lilwall, 4 Camp. 279. Mynne

r. Joliffe. 1 M. & Rob. 827. Sykes v. Giles, 5 M. & W. 645.

202 Mercantile persons.

Rights of the Principal against third Parties.

So where the prefixed time during whicli tlie agency was to con-

tinue, expires, {p)

Section Y. — Rights of the Princijxd against third Parties.^

As tlie principal is bound by the acts and contracts of his au-

thorized agent, so he may take advantage of them ; {q) and if one

person contract, even without authority, in tlie name of another,

that other, though he may repudiate the contract, may, if he think

fit, adopt and enforce it. (r) But then he must adopt it altogether :

he cannot ratify what is beneficial to himself, and reject the re-

mainder, (s) And there is a difference between his right to adopt

a contract, and a bare act, the effect of which would be to raise a

duty towards him from a third party, and subject that third party

to damage for its non-performance. Such an act can never, if un-

authorized at first, be confirmed by any recognition ex post facto.

thus, a demand of payment, in order to oust the debtor's plea of

tender, or a demand of property, in order to found an action of

(p) Dickenson v. Lilwall, iibi sup.

Iq) Seignior V. Walmer, Godb. 3g0.

(r) Routh V. Thompson, 13 East, 274. Ilagedorn v. Oliverson, 2 M. &. S. 485.

Marsh v. Keating, 1 Bingh. N. C. 108. In Whitehead v. Taylor, 10 A. & E. 210, held

that an executor might adopt a distress made imder the testator's direction, but after

his death.

(s) Wilson V. Poulter, 2 Str. 859. Billon v. Il3-de, 1 Atk. 128. Smith v. Hodson,

4T. R. 211. B. N. P. 131. Brewer v. Sparrow, 7 B. <fe C. 310. Thorpe y. Thorpe,

3 B. & Adol. 580. See Burn v. Morris, 4 Tyrwh. 486, 2 C. <fe M. 579, where A. having

found a bank note of the plaintiff's gave it to the defendant, who got it changed,

and handed A. the proceeds ; A. was taken up, and 11., part of the proceeds, found

on her, and restored to the plaintiff, wlio afterwards sued the defendant in trover for

the note. Lord Lyndhurst, C. B., said tliat "in Brewer v. Sparrow the whole pro-

ceeds of the sale were taken, that is an adoption of the act ; here the receipt of the

7Z. Does not ratify the act, it only goes in diminution of damages."

* It is now well settled by the authorities, that where the property of one is sold

by another, as agent, if the principal gives notice to the purchaser before payment

to pay to himself, and not to the agent, the purchaser is bound to pay the principal,

subject to any equities of the former against the agent. Huntington v. Knox, 7 Gush.

Rep. 373

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. oqs

Rights of the Principal against third Parties.

trover, must be made bj an agent ]ireviously authorized ; {() and the

same doctrine applies to a notice to quit, (zi) notwithstanding the

cases of Roe v. Pearce, {v) and Goodiitle v. Woodward, {id) (which lat-

ter may be supported on another ground.) (cc) Where a previous

authority is requisite, it seems that the person whom it is to affect

may require to be properly satisfied of its existence, and is not

bound to take the agent's bare assertion, {y) In other instances,

where no duty is to be raised on the part of a third person, an

adoption ex post facto is generally sufficient ; ex. gr. of an entry to

avoid a fine. (2)