An agent's authority may be terminated in various ways. The authority may itself fix its limits or may contain conditions which, when they come into effect, automatically end it. But an agency may be determined in other ways also, and especially by a renunciation on the part of the agent or by a revocation on the part of the principal, even though such renunciation or revocation is in violation of a contract between the two. Though, as between the principal and the agent receipt of a notice from one to the other would terminate the agency,44 in order to free the principal from possible liability to third persons for further acts of the agent within the apparently continuing scope of his original authority, notice must be given to such third persons either of renunciation45 or of revocation,46

44Jones v. Hodgkins, 61 Me. 480.

45Capen v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co., 25 N. J. L. (1 Dutch.) 67, 64 Am. Dec. 412.

46 Southern L. Ins. Co. v. McCain, 96 U. 8. 84, 24 L. Ed. 653; Johnson v Christian, 12S U. S. 374,32 L. Ed. 412, 9 3. Ct. 87; Grate v Land, etc., Improvement Co., 82 Fed. 381, 27 C. C. A. 305,40 L. R. A. 393; Quinn v. Dreobach, 75 Cal. 159,16 Pac. 762, 7 Am. St. Rep. 138; Meyer v. Hehner, 96 111. 400; Harris p. Cuddy, 21 La. Ann. 388; Maxoy

Mfg. Co. v. Bumham, 89 Me. 538, 36 Atl. 1003, 56 Am. St. Rep. 436; Packer v. Hinckley Locomotive Works, 122 Mass. 484; Rice v. Barnard, 127 Maes. 241; Blake v. Garwood, 42 N. J. Eq. 276, 10 Atl. 874; Beard v. Kirk, 11 N. H. 397; Farmers' L. & T. Co. p. Wilson, 139 N. Y. 284, 289, 34 N. E. 784, 36 Am. St Rep. 696; Smith v. Watson, 82 Va. 712, 1 S. E. 06. But where an agent was originally au-thorized to do but a single act his power is thereby exhausted without notice.

in order that the principal may not be bound by the continuing apparent authority of the agent. Notice must, therefore, be given to all who have dealt with the agent as such, and also to all who because of the previous existence of the agency are likely to be deceived even though they have had no previous dealings with him. As it is impossible to give actual notice to every one of the latter class, a general notice by publication is sufficient. But as those who have had previous dealings with the agent, direct notice is necessary.47 An agency may also be terminated by death either of the principal or of the agent, and it seems that death of the principal even though unknown to the agent or to the person with whom he deals, revokes the agent's power.48 But the hardship of this rule has led to decisions by several courts that unless the act in question had to be done in the principal's name, notice of the principal's death is necessary.49 Insanity of the principal effects a revocation of the agent's powers but not until notice.50 Bankruptcy of the principal also terminates the agency51 and it seems irrespective of

Fellows v. Hartford Ac. Steamboat Co., 38 Conn. 197; Watts v. Kavanagh, 36 Vt. 34.

47 These rules are the same as those which govern the dissolution of a partnership. See Wright v. Herrick, 128 Mass. 240; Claflin v. Lenheim, 66 N. Y. 301.

48Blades v. Free, 9 B. & C. 167; Smout v. Ilbery, 10 M. & W. 1; In re Oriental Bank Corp., 28 Ch. D. 634, 640; Long v. Thayer, 150 U. S. 520, 37 L. Ed. 1167; 14 S. Ct. 189; McClaskey v. Barr, 50 Fed. 712, 714; Ferris v. Irving, 28 Cal. 645; Travers v. Crane, 15 Cal. 12; Lewis v. Kerr, 17 Ia. 73; Harper v. Little, 2 Me. 14, 11 Am. Dec. 25; Martett v. Jackman, 3 Allen, 287; Clayton v. Merrett, 52 Miss. 353; Weber v. Bridgman, 113 N. Y. 600, 21 N. E. 985; Farmer's L. 4 T. Co. v. Wilson, 139 N. Y. 284, 34 N. E. 784, 36 Am. St. Rep. 696; Fischer v. Schram, 173 N. Y. App. D. 147, 159 N. Y. S. 496; Bunch v. Dunning, 106S. C. 300,91 S. E. 331; Rigs v. Cage,

2 Humph. 350,37 Am. Dec 559; Cleveland v. Williams, 29 Tex. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 274; Davis v. Windsor Bank, 46 Vt. 728; Larson v. Anderson, 97 Wash. 484, 166 Pac. 774. Cf. Moore v.Hall, 48 Mich. 143, 11 N. W. 844.

49Dick v. Page, 17 Mo. 234, 57 Am. Dec. 267; Deweeee v. Muff, 57 Neb. 17, 77 N. W. 361, 42 L. R. A. 789, 73 Am. St. Rep. 488; Ish v. Crane, 13 Oh. St. 574, s. c. 8 Oh. St. 520; Cassidy v. McKenzie, 4 W. & S. 282, 39 Am. Dec. 76. See also Garrett v. Trabue, 82 Ala. 227, 3 So. 149. Statutes to this effect either covering agencies generally, or certain specified agencies, have been passed in some jurisdictions. Powers of Atty Act of 1882, Sec. 3 (England). Such is the rule in Porto Rico. Santiago v- Roses, 242 Fed. 209,155 C. C. A. 49.

50 Matthiesen, etc., Co. v. McMahon'a Adm'r, 38 N. 1, L. 536; Hill p. Day, 34 N. J. Eq. 150, 157; Davis v. Lane, 10 N. H. 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 68, 69 N. Y. S. 357.

51 Minett v. Forrester, 4 Taunt. 641; notice.52 Bankruptcy of the agent has a similar effect,53 unless the agency was of a somewhat formal character not requiring business confidence.54 The appointment of a receiver for the principal's property is distinguished from bankruptcy, and takes effect only on notice.55 Marriage at common law, as it deprived a woman of contractual capacity,56 revoked her power of attorney, and even though a third person who dealt with the general agent of a woman prior to her marriage, continued to do so subsequently, in ignorance thereof, she would not be bound.57 How far the law in this respect has been changed depends on local statutes.58 Even where married women are given full contractual capacity, marriage would revoke a power which related to property the rights in which became affected by the marriage relation.59 Finally, war between the country of the principal and that of the agent ends the relation between them, except as to matters which do not require commercial intercourse or the sending of property to a belligerent.60