Where defendant's husband had an interview with plaintiff in regard to a sale of her land, and that in response to a letter from plaintiff the husband called at the office and was introduced to T, and the latter showed defendant and her husband land that he wished to exchange, but it did not satisfy defendant; afterward she accepted another offer made by T. to buy the land; on the trial defendant and her husband attempted to suppress their own testimony, and their conduct justified the belief that defendant had authorized or ratified her husband's act. Sims v. Rockwell, 156 Mass. 372, 31 N. E. 484.

An unauthorized contract of sale is binding upon a principal when ratified through another duly authorized agent. Hoyt v. Tuxbury, 70 I11. 331. A principal may, by accepting the proceeds, ratify a sale made by his broker upon false representations. Kelly v. Carter, 55 Ark. 112, 17 S. W. 706; Powell v. Gasson, 18 B. Monroe (Ky.), 179; Stockbridge v. West Stock-bridge, 14 Mass. 257, 261; Vaughn v. Sheridan, 50 Mich. 155; Krumer v. Beach, 25 Hun (N. Y.), 293; Roberts v. Hilton Ld. M. Co., 45 Wash. 464, 88 P. 946; Elwood v. Tiemair, 139 P. 362, 91 Kan. 842; Bond v. Humbert, 85 A. 943, 118 Md. 650. See also Sec. 622. Ratification may arise from long acquiescence. Kehler v. Kemble, 26 La. Ann. 713; Hull v. Harper, 17 I11. 82; Williams v. Merritt, 23 I11. 623. Prom the bringing of a suit by the principal to acquire the benefit of the acts of the alleged agent. Bank of Beloit v. Beale, 34 N. Y. 473; Carsee v. Paul, 41 N. H. 24; Walker v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 34 Miss. 245; Folger v. Mitchell, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 396. By a letter from the principal to his agent authorizing certain acts, although received after their performance. Rice v. McLaren, 42 Me. 157.

No act is capable of ratification unless performed by the agent in behalf of his principal. Collins v. Snow, 7 Robt. (N. Y.) 623; Com. Bank v. Jones, 18 Tex. 811; Fellows v. Commissioners, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 655.

The policy of the law will not permit a principal to ratify an unauthorized act in part and repudiate the remainder; it must be accepted or rejected as an entirety. Fisher v. Stevens, 16 I11. 397; Henderson v. Cummings, 44 I11. 325; Wedner v. Lane, 14 Mich. 124: Elwell v. Chamberlain, 31 N. Y. 611; Coleman v. Stark, 1 Ore. 115; Bishop v. Stewart, 13 Nev. 25; Newell v. Hurlbut, 2 Ver. 351; Kyle v. Rippey, 20 Oregon, 446, 26 P. 308.

A principal taking possession, knowing of a mortgage given by the agent to purchase the land for the unpaid purchase money, and a note executed at the same time by the agent for the same purpose, ratified his acts. Fouch v. Wilson, 59 Ind. 93.

A principal will not be held to have ratified unauthorized acts of his agent unless, at the time, he was fully aware of all the circumstances. Owings v. Hall, 9 Peters (U. S.), 607; Fedrick v. Rice, 13 Iowa, 214; Fletcher v. Dysart, 9 B. Monroe (Ky.), 413; Woodbury v. Lamed, 5 Minn. 339; Pittsburg, etc., B. v. Gazzan, 32 Pa. St 340; Hardeman v. Ford, 12 Ga. 205; Dodge v. McDonnell, 14 Wis. 600; Dickerson v. Conway, 12 Allen (Mass.), 487; Seymour v. Wychoff, 10 N. Y. 213; Stein v. Kendall, 1 Bradwell (I11.), 193; Bosseau v. O'Brien, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 395.

Before a person can be bound by the ratification of the purchase of certain real estate by his broker, instead of a particular lot, it must appear that he was informed of all the material facts in the transaction. Kerr v. Sharp, 83 I11. 199; Stein v. Kendall, 1 I11. App. 103.

Where an agent for the sale of real estate executed his instructions in selling a part of the property in regard to which he was authorized only to negotiate for a sale, and his principal afterward impliedly ratified all his acts by receiving the money for the sale of all the land, but it appeared that he did not know that the portion unintended had been sold. Held, that the agreement made by the agent was neither authorized nor ratified. Lester v. Kinne, 37 Conn. 9. The unauthorized deed of an agent, where still required to be sealed, can be ratified only by an instrument under seal. Spofford v. Hobbs, 29 Me. 148; Drum-right v. Philpot, 16 Ga. 424; Reese v. Medlock, 27 Tex. 120. Where the instrument unauthorizedly executed by the agent did not require a seal, a written ratification without suffices. Grozier v. Karr, 11 Texas, 376; Adams v. Power, 52 Miss. 828.

In those States which do not require the authority of the agent to be in writing the principal may ratify by parol. 1 Parsons on Con. 52; Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374. And in States where parol ratification prevails, the approval of the principal may be inferred from acts. Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374. Where a written contract for the sale of lands was made by one to whom power therefor could not be delegated, such act may be ratified by an instrument in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds. Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587.

In Pennsylvania an unauthorized lease of land by an agent for a longer period than three years can be ratified by the owner only in writing. McDowell v. Simpson, 3 Watts (Pa.), 129. When informed of the unauthorized acts of his agent the principal must, within a reasonable time, elect to approve or disapprove; if he does not disaffirm them the agent may presume that his conduct has been approved; silence will be equivalent to approval. Meyer v. Morgan, 51 Miss. 21; Hawkins v. Sanger, 22 Minn. 557.

One does not ratify the unauthorized acts of others in executing a contract of sale of his lots by merely remaining silent a long time, he not having known of the facts and having been misled in important particulars by their letter, having received no benefits under the contract, and his silence not having caused the vendee to change his position for the worse. Colvin v. Blanchard (Tex. Sup. '07), 106 S. W. 323; affirming 103 S. W. 1118; List & Son Co. v. Chase, 80 0. St. 42; Cohen v. Jackson, 96 N. E. 669, 210 Mass. 328; Smith v. Craig, 112 P. 513, 61 Wash. 528; Crumpacker v. Jeffrey, 115 N. E. 62.