226. Weed V. Carpenter, 4 Wend. 219. Cairnes V. Bleeker, 12 Johns. R. 300. Hooe

& Harrison v. Oxley & Hancock, 1 Wash. V. 23. Horton & Hutton v. Townes, 6

Leigh. 47. Culver v. Ashley, 19 Pick. 300. Burn v. Denman, 2 Exch. Rep. 167,

Wilson V. Tamman, 6 Man. & Gran. 236. If the act of the agent was in itself un-

lawful, and directly injurious to another, no subsequent ratification will operate to

make the principal a trespasser, unless the trespass was committed for his use and

benefit ; an authority to commit a trespass does not result by mere implication of

law. 2 Green on Evid. 62. This proposition, however, seems inconsistent with the

later authorities. See Bird v. Brown, 14 Jurist 132. Wilson v. Tamman, 6 Man. & 9,

242. Burn V. Denman, 2 Exch. 167. A principal will not, however, be liable for a

wilful trespass committed by his servant, because approved by his genei-al agent.

Vanderbilt V. Richmond t. Co., 2 Comst. 479. A corporation as well as an indivi-

dual maj' render itself liable by affirming the unauthorized act of its agent. New Eng-

land Insurance Co. v. De Wolfe, 8 Pick. 55. Mass. v. The Rossic Lead Mining Co., 5

Hill's Rep. 137 : or the act of an unauthorized agent, Merchants Bank of Macon v.

Central Bank of Georgia, 1 Kelly Rep. 418.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 157

Rights of Principal against Agent.

re-sale, think fit on that account to upliold the transaction ; {d) so

neither can an agent employed to purchase be himself the seller,

unless there was a plain understanding between him and his prin-

cipal to that effect, (e) And if an agent who is employed to pur-

chase, purchase for himself, he will be considered a trustee for his

principal. (/) This is in accordance with the rule of the Civilians.

Tutor rem impilli emere non potest: Idem que porrigendum est ad

similia, id est ad curatores^ procuratores et qui negoti aaliena gerunt.

Dig. 1. 18, tit. 1. The Legislature has, in one instance, enforced

these doctrines, by prohibiting agents, employed to buy or sell cat-

tle in London, from buying or selling on their own account ; (g)

and it has, as we have seen, been held that one contracting party

cannot act as the agent of the other, even with that other's consent,

so as to bind him by a writing within the Statute of Frauds. An

agent will not be allowed to dispute the title of his principal to

the subject matter of the agency, (h) Thus, a wharfinger who has

acknowledged that he holds goods for a particular transferee, can-

not afterwards refuse to deliver them to him, and if he do refuse,

Is liable to trover.

It is a very essential part of the good faith required from him,

that he should keep a clear account and communicate the result

from time to time to his employer ; (^) though an inferior agent is

[d] Lowther v. Lowther, Lord Hardwick v. Vernon, 4 Ves. 41 L Whitcombe v.

Minchin, 5 Madd. 91. Oliver v. Court, Dan. 391 ; 8 Price, 127 ; and if he hav3 sold

again for a profit, the Court в– will consider him a trustee to that extent for his em-

ployer. Baker v. Harrison, 2 Coll. C. C. 546.

(e) Massay v. Davies, 3 Ves. jun. 227. See E. I. Company v. Henchman, I Ves.

jun. 289.

(/) Lees V. Nuttall, 2 M. <fe K 819. Taylor v. Salmon, 2 M. & Cr. 139.

(g) Stat. 31 Geo. 2, c. 40, s. 11.

(h) Holl. V. Griffin, 10 Bingh. 246, where the acknowledgment was prospective.

Dixon V. Hammond, 2 B. <fe A. 310. Roberts v. Ogilby, 9 Price, 269. Gosling v.

Birnie, 1 Bingh. 339. White v. Bartlett, 9 Bingh. 378. Gillett v. Hill, 4 Tyrwh.