In part at least, from the necessity of the case rather than from evidence of actual authority, it has from early times been continuously held that the auctioneer at an auction sale is not only the agent of the seller, but is also the agent of the buyer for the purpose of making and signing a memorandum.84 The signature by the auctioneer must, however, be made immediately or it will not be binding, so temporary is his authority,85 and between the fall of the hammer and the writing of the memorandum, the bidder has a locus penitentup and may withdraw his bid,86 or the owner of the property may revoke the auctioneer's authority.87 If the auctioneer is himself interested as a seller, he cannot by his signature bind the buyer,88 even though the buyer was aware of the auctioneer's personal interest and expressly assented to his signing the memorandum. The difficulty is insuperable of one party to a transaction signing a memorandum as agent for the other.89 The authority of the auctioneer to sign a memorandum extends to his clerk,90 and the clerk is not subject to the limitation upon the auctioneer, for if the auctioneer's goods are sold to a third person, the clerk can bind both the auctioneer and the buyer by his signature to the memorandum.91

80The decsions in regard to auctioneers and brokers referred to in the following sections sufficiently indicate the possibility of one person being agent for both in making a memorandum. As to the limitations of the power of one person to be agent for two parties to the same transaction in general, see Mechem, Agency (2d ed.), Sec.5 1206,1590.

81 Wright v. Dannah, 2 Camph. 203; Farebrotfaer v. Simmons, 5 B. & Ald. 333; Shannan v. Brandt, L. R. 6 Q. B. 720; Hopp Bros. Co. v. Hunter Mfg. Ac. Co., 145 Ga. 836, 90 S. E. 61; Bent v. Cobb, 9 Gray, 397,69 Am. Dee. 296; Boardman v. Spooner, 13 Allen, 353, 90 Am. Dec. 196; Tull v. David, 45 Mo. 444, 100 Am. Dec. 385; Dunham v. Hartman, 153 Mo. 625, 65 S. W. 233, 77 Am. St. Rep. 741; Johnson v. Buck, 35 N. J. L. 338,10 Am. Rep. 243; Wilson v. Lewiston Mill Co., 150 N. Y. 314, 44 N. E. 959, 55 Am. St. Rep. 680; Adams v. Scales, 1 Baxt. 337, 25

Am. Rep. 772; Strong v. Dodds, 47 Vt. 348. Compare Bird v. Boulter, 4 B. & Ad. 443; Murphy v. Bocae, L. R, 10 Ex. 126; Snyder v, Wolford, 33 Minn. 175, 22 N. W. 254, 53 Am. Rep. 22; Brent v. Green, 6 Leigh, 16.

82Henderson v. Bamewall, 1 Y. A J. 387.

83See Williams v. Woods, 16 Md. 220.

84 Simon v. Metivier, 1 W. Bl. 599; Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38; White v. Proctor, 4 Taunt. 209; Bird v. Boulter, 4 B. & Ad. 443; Mews v. Carr, 1 H. & N. 484; Sims v. Landray, 63 L. J. Ch. 535; White v. Farley, 81 Ala. 563, 8 So. 21S; Craig v. Godfrey, 1 Cal. 416, 54 Am. Deo. 299; Ansley v. Green, 82 Ga. 181, 7 S. E. 921; Doty v. Wilder, 16 111. 407,60 Am. Dec. 766; Jones v. Kokomo Assoc., 77 Ind. 340; Thomas v. Kerr, 3 Bush, 619, 96 Am. Dec 262; McBrayer v. Cohen, 92 Ky. 479, 18 S. W. 123; Garth v. Davis, 120 Ky. 106,86 S. W. 692; O'Donnell v.