An agent may be able to make contracts which will bind his principal not only when actually authorized by express words or implication of fact to do so but also in cases where the principal did not intend to confer such authority on the agent but, nevertheless, held out to the public or to the person with whom the agent dealt an appearance of authority. If one with whom the agent dealt justifiably believed the agent was authorized, and if the facts justifying that belief were due to the conduct of the supposed principal, the latter will be bound. The misconduct on the part of the supposed principal need not have been fraudulent or wilful.25 Illustrations of apparent authority binding the principal, though no actual authority was given, arise where a person is knowingly permitted by another to act in business matters in the latter's name, or apparently on his behalf.26

21 See infra, Sec. 489.

22 Overman v. Atkinson, 102 Ga. 760, 29 S. E. 758.

23 First Nat. Bank v. Gaines, 87 Ky. 597, 9 S. W. 396; Simpson v. Commonwealth, 89 Ky. 412, 12 S. W. 630; Inter-Southern Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 178 Ky. 96, 198 S. W. 563.

24 Lithograph Bldg. Co. v. Watt,

96 Ohio St. 74, 117 N. E. 26.

25Bronaon's Exec. v. Chappell 12 Wall. 681, 20 L. Ed. 436; Johnson v. Christian, 128 U. S. 374, 32 L. Ed. 412, 9 S. Ct. 87; Stark Electric R. Co. v. McGinty Contracting Co., 238 Fed. 657, 151 C. C. A. 507.

26Thomas v. Moody, 67 Cal. 215; Florida, etc., R, Co, v. Varnecke, 81

So where one intrusts another with negotiable paper containing blanks, he is bound, as against a holder in due course, by the terms of the instrument as filled in by the person intrusted therein though the blanks were filled in violation of the authority actually given;27 and in any case where a supposed principal by his conduct justifies another in assuming the existence of authority, he will be bound by simple contracts entered into on his behalf within the apparent authority of the supposed agent.