which is not of a like kind with the acts sanctioned by such authority in the wider sense of the term, is beyond the scope of the agent's authority. CHAPTER III. [121] IMPLIED AUTHORITY OF PARTICULAR CLASSES OF AGENTS. SECT. 1. The Authority of Auctioneers.1 As a rule, one of two contracting parties cannot act as agent for the other, but in sales by auction the auctioneer is considered to be agent of both parties, so as to bind either the buyer or seller by his memorandum.2 3 An auctioneer has a possession coupled with an interest in goods which he is employed to sell; not a bare custody, like a servant or shopman. There is no difference whether the sale be on the premises of the owner or in a public auction room. The auctioneer has also a special property in such goods, with a lien for the charges of sale, commission, and the auction duty. The catalogue and conditions may afford evidence that he has contracted personally, and so be liable for non-delivery of goods and the like. A bidding may be withdrawn at any time before the lot is knocked down." An auctioneer has implied authority — (a) To prescribe the rules of bidding and the terms of sale." 8. See notes ante; Tiffany Agency, 174; also notes to Evans Agency (Ewell's ed.), 166 et seq. 1. See, generally, Tiffany Agency, 225. 2. Morton v. Dean, 13 Met. 385; Pike v. Balch, 38 Me. 302, 311; McComb v. Wright, 4 Johns. Ch. 659; Pugh v. Chisseldine, 11 Ohio, 109; Johnson v. Buck, 35 N. J. Law, 338. 3. See Adams v. Scales, 57 Tenn. 337. 4. Williams v. Millington, 1 H. Bl. 81, 84, 85. 5. Woolfe v. Horne, 2 Q. B. Div. 355. 6. Warlow v. Harrison, 27 L. J., Q. B. 18; Payne v. Cave, 3 Term, 148. 7. Paley, by Lloyd, 257; Story on Agency, § 107. (b) To bind his principal by his declarations made at the time of sale, provided such declarations are consistent with the written conditions.8 (c) To sue the buyer in his own name." [122] But he has no implied authority (a) To receive the purchase-money for land sold by him.' (b) To employ another person to sell the property intrusted to him.2 (c) To sell on credit.3 (d) To allow the contract to be rescinded.* (e) To sell by private contract. It is no excuse that he has acted without fraud, and obtained a larger sum than the price fixed." (f) To buy property which he is commissioned to sell." SECT. 2. The Authority of Brokers.8 A broker has implied authority – 8. Ibid.; Gunnis v. Enhart, 1 H. Bl. 289. See Poree v. Bonneval, 6 La. Ann. 386; Wright v. Deklyne, Pet. C. C. 199; Rankin v. Matthews, 7 Ired. Law, 286; Satterfield v. Smith, 11 id. 60. In The Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat. 647, Thompson J., lays down the rule that "sales at auction, in the usual mode, are never understood to be accompanied by a warranty. Auctioneers are special agents, and have only authority to sell, and not to warrant, unless specially instructed so to do." At judicial sales and sales for taxes, the maxim caveat emptor applies, and no warranty can be implied. Yates v. Bond, 2 McCord, 382; Bashore v. Whisler 3 Watts, 490; Blackwell on Tax Titles (4th ed.), 51, 65, 442, note, and cases cited. 9. Story on Agency, ibid. Hulse v. Young, 16 Johns. 1; Minturn v. Main, 7 N. Y. 220; Tyler v. Freeman, 3 Cush. 261; Thompson v. Kelly, 101 Mass. 291. 1. Sykes v. Giles, 5 M. & W. 645. See, also, Williams v. Evans, L. R., 1 Q. B. 352. See, however, Pinkney v. Hagadorn, 1 Duer, 90. 2. Blore v. Sutton, 3 Mer. 237; Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. jun. 254; Commonwealth v. Harnden, 19 Pick. 482. He may, however, employ all necessary clerks and servants, and relieve himself by employing others to use the hammer and make the outcry. But this should be done under his immediate direction and supervision. Commonwealth v. Harnden, supra. 3. Williams v. Millington, 1 H. Bl. 81; Townes v. Birchett, 12 Leigh, 173. 4. Nelson v. Aldridge, 2 Stark. 435; Boinest v. Leignez, 2 Rich. Law, 464. 5. Wilkes v. Ellis, 2 H. Bl. 555. 6. Daniels v. Adams, Amb. 495. 7. See Tate v. Williamson, L. Rep., 2 Ch. 55. 8. See, generally, Tiffany Agency, 224. (a) To sign the bought and sold note, and so bind both parties." (b) To sell on credit in the absence of a usage to the contrary.1 (c) To adjust a policy if employed to subscribe it.2 The authorities are conclusive to show that a broker acting for one of the contracting parties, making a contract for the other, is not authorized by both to bind both; but the broker who makes a contract for one may be authorized by that person to make and sign a memorandum of the contract, and the signed entry in the broker's book is a sufficient memorandum of the bargain to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.3 A broker has no implied authority (a) To buy or sell in his own name. The case of an insurance broker is an exception to this rule; he need not even state that he contracts as a broker." (b) To receive payment for goods sold for his principal." [123] But an insurance broker has authority to receive payment of any loss that may occur on a policy effected by him, if the instrument remains in his lands." (c) To make freight under a charter-party entered into by him for his principal, payable to himself." (d) To delegate his authority." 9. Parton v. Crofts, 16 C. B., N. S. 11; Saladin v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 79. 1. Boorman v. Brown, 3 Q. B. 511; Wiltshire v. Sims, 1 Camp. 258. 2. Richardson v. Anderson, 1 Camp. 43, note (a). 3. Thompson v. Gardiner, L. R., 1 C. P. Div. 777; Coddington v. Goddard, 16 Gray, 436. A broker employed to sell lands has no implied authority to sign a contract of sale in behalf of his principal. Morris v. Ruddy, 20 N. J. Eq. 236; Coleman v. Garrigues, 18 Barb. 60; Glentworth v. Luther, 21 id. 145; Roach v. Coe, 1 E. D. Smith, 175. 4. Baring v. Corrie, 2 B. & Ald. 137; Saladin v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 79. 5. DeVignier v. Swanson, 1 B. & P. 346, note b. 6. Campbell v. Hassell, 1 Stark. 233; Graham v. Duckwall, 8 Bush, 12; Saladin v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 79, 84; Higgins v. Moore, 34 N. Y. (anno. reprint) 417. 7. Shee v. Clarkson, 12 East, 507. 8. Walshe v. Provan, 8 Ex. 843. 9. Henderson v. Barnwell, 1 Y. & Jer. 387. 24. (e) To pay losses for the underwriters who employ him.1 (f) [To bind his principal by a submission to arbitration.]2 SECT. 3. The Authority of Factors.3 A factor has implied authority (a) To sell in his own name.* (b) To sell upon reasonable credit." (c) To warrant.® (d) To receive payment and give recepts." (e) To ensure consignments on behalf of his principal. Probably he may insure in his own name. A factor has no implied authority – (a) To barter his principal's goods.1 (b) At common law, to pledge the goods intrusted to him. This rule still holds good except as far as it is modified by statute law. (c) To delegate his authority.3 1. Bell v. Auldjo, 4 Doug. 48. 2. Ingraham v. Whitmore, 75 Ill. Co., 5 Ell. & Bl. 870; Johnson v. Emergencies may arise in which an 3. See, generally, Tiffany Agency, agent or a factor may, from the neces222 et seq. 4. Baring v. Corrie, 2 B. & Ald. 137; Graham v. Duckwall, 8 Bush, 12. 5. Houghton v. Matthews, 3 B. & P. 489; Daylight Burner Co. v. Odlin, 31 N. H. 59; Hapgood v. Batcheller, 4 Met. 576; Greely v. Bartlett, 1 Me. 178; Van Alen v. Vanderpool, 6 John. 70. 6. Pickering v. Rusk, 15 East, 38, 45, per Bailey, J.; Randall v. Kehlor, 60 Me. 37; Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. 359. sities of the case, be justified in assuming extraordinary powers, and his acts fairly done under such circumstances bind the principal. Acts done in the bona fide efforts to save perishing property (heated grain in this case), come within the rule. Jervis v. Hoyt, 2 Hun, 637; s. c. 5 Thomp. & C. 199; Greenleaf v. Moody, 13 Allen, 363. 1. Guerreiro v. Peile, 4 B. & Ald. 616. 2. Bott v. McCoy, 20 Ala. 578; 7. Drinkwater v. Goodwin, Cowp. Laussatt v. Lippincott, 6 S. & R. 386; 256. 8. Lucena v. Crawford, 2 B. & P. N. R. 269. 9. See 1 Arnould, Insurance, 301; Waters v. Monarch Fire Assurance First Nat. Bank v. Nelson, 38 Geo. 391; Macky v. Dillinger, 73 Penn. St. 85; Rodriguez v. Heffernan, 5 Johns. Ch. 429. 3. Cockran v. Irlam, 2 M. & S. 301; Loomis v. Simpson, 13 Iowa, 532. (a) To sign the bought and sold note, and so bind both parties.9 (b) To sell on credit in the absence of a usage to the contrary.1 (c) To adjust a policy if employed to subscribe it.2 The authorities are conclusive to show that a broker acting for one of the contracting parties, making a contract for the other, is not authorized by both to bind both; but the broker who makes a contract for one may be authorized by that person to make and sign a memorandum of the contract, and the signed entry in the broker's book is a sufficient memorandum of the bargain to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. A broker has no implied authority (a) To buy or sell in his own name. The case of an insurance broker is an exception to this rule; he need not even state that he contracts as a broker.5 (b) To receive payment for goods sold for his principal." [123] But an insurance broker has authority to receive payment of any loss that may occur on a policy effected by him, if the instrument remains in his lands." (c) To make freight under a charter-party entered into by him for his principal, payable to himself.8 (d) To delegate his authority." 9. Parton v. Crofts, 16 C. B., N. S. 11; Saladin v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 79. 1. Boorman v. Brown, 3 Q. B. 511; Wiltshire v. Sims, Camp. 258. 2. Richardson v. Anderson, 1 Camp. 43, note (a). 3. Thompson v. Gardiner, L. R., 1 C. P. Div. 777; Coddington v. Goddard, 16 Gray, 436. A broker employed to sell lands has no implied authority to sign a contract of sale in behalf of his principal. Morris v. Ruddy, 20 N. J. Eq. 236; Coleman v. Garrigues, 18 Barb. 60; Glentworth v. Luther, 21 id. 145; Roach v. Coe, 1 E. D. Smith, 175. 4. Baring v. Corrie, 2 B. & Ald. 137; Saladin v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 79. 5. DeVignier v. Swanson, 1 B. & P. 346, note b. 6. Campbell v. Hassell, 1 Stark. 233; Graham v. Duckwall, 8 Bush, 12; Saladin v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 79, 84; Higgins v. Moore, 34 N. Y. (anno. reprint) 417. 7. Shee v. Clarkson, 12 East, 507. 8. Walshe v. Provan, 8 Ex. 843. 9. Henderson v. Barnwell, 1 Y. & Jer. 387. |