The principal is not liable for a contract made by his agent outside both his real and his apparent authority.1 The liability of the principal where the agent has exceeded his authority depends on principles of estoppel. If no facts exist, therefore, to estop the principal from denying the authority of the agent, persons dealing with the agent must take notice of his powers.2 So persons dealing with an agent are bound by known limitations on his authority.3 So where the agent is a special agent of limited powers, the principal in the absence of estoppel or ratification, is not bound by his contract in excess of his authority.4 Thus an agreement by a local railway agent in violation of a known rule of the railway to make no charge to a large shipper for demurrage or storage is not binding on the company.5 So an agent having an assignment of a judgment for safe keeping cannot assign such judgment to one who knows the facts.6 So a conveyance by an attorney in fact, having known authority to convey only on approval by his principal, is of no validity if made without such approval.7 So if A buys a piano from B as agent of X and makes his note therefor payable to B personally, it has been held that if B does not account to X for the proceeds of such note, X may recover the piano, X not having ratified the sale and no such custom of business being shown.8

1 Trust Co. v. Robinson, 79 Fed. 420; Wailes v. Neal, 65 Ala. 59; Hawcott v. Kilbourn, 44 Ark. 213; Smith v. Ins. Co., 107 Cal. 432; 40 Pac. 540; Ferris v. Baker, 127 Cal. 520; 59 Pac. 937; Union Coal Co. v. Edman, 16 Colo. 438; 27 Pac. 1060; Amicalola, etc., Co. v. Coker, 111 Ga. 872; 36 S. E. 950; Massil-lon, etc., Co. v. Akerman, 110 Ga. 570; 35 S. E. 635; Grand Rapids, etc., Co. v. Morel, 110 Ga. 321; 35 S. E. 312; Proctor v. Tows, 115 111. 138; 3 N. E. 569; Whitam v. R. R. Co., 96 Ia. 737; 65 N. W. 403; Machine Co. v. Clark, 15 Kan. 492; Eaton v. Provident Association, 89 Me. 58; 35 Atl. 1015; Fontaine, etc., Electrical Co. v. Rauch, 117 Mich. 401; 75 N. W. 1063; Murphy v. Ins. Co., 83 Mo. App. 481; Association v. Murray, 47 Neb. 627; 66 N. W. 635; Gifford v. Landrine, 37 N. J. Eq. 127; Taylor v. Hunt, 118 N. C. 168; 24 S. E. 359; Q. W. Loverin-Browne Co. v. Bank, 7 N. D. 569; 75 N. W. 923; Central, etc., Supply Co. v. Thompson, 112 Pa. St. 118; 3 Atl. 439; Ehrhardt v. Breeland, 57 S. C. 142; 35 S. E. 537; Dickerman v. Ins. Co., 67 Vt. 609; 32 Atl. 489; Fisher v. White, 94 Va. 236; 26 S. E. 573; Garber v. Blatchley, 51 W. Va. 147; 41 S. E. 222; Rosen-dorf v. Poling, 48 W. Va. 621; 37 S. E. 555.

2 McRae v. Development Co. (Cal.), 54 Pa. 743; O'Leary v. Ins. Co.,

100 Ia. 390; 69 N. W. 686; Lawall v. Groman, 180 Pa. St. 532; 57 Am. St. Rep. 662; 37 Atl. 98; Connor v. Johnson, 59 S. C. 115; 37 S. E. 240; Garber v. Blatchley, 51 W. Va. 147; 41 S. E. 222.

1 Simon v. Johnson, 101 Ala. 368; 13 So. 491; Birmingham, etc., Co. v. R. R. Co., 127 Ala. 137; 28 So. 679; Snapp v. Stanwood, 65 Ark. 222; 45 S. W. 546; Lakeside, etc., Co. v. Campbell, 39 Fla. 523; 22 So. 878; Brandenstein v. Douglas, 105 Ga. 845; 32 S. E. 341; Blackmer v. Mining Co., 187 111. 32; 58 N. E. 289; Kinser v. Clay Co., 165 111. 505; 46 N. E. 372; affirming 64 111. App. 437; Noftsger v. Barkdoll, 148 Ind. 531; 47 N. E. 960; Kiefer v. Klinsick, 144 Ind. 46; 42 N. E. 447; Stover v. Flower, 120 Ia. 514; 94 N. W. 1100; Godshaw v. Struck, 109 Ky. 285; 58 S. W. 781; 51 L. R. A. 668; Warren v. Goodwyn, 110 La. 198; 34 So. 411; Munroe v. White-house, 90 Me. 139; 37 Atl. 866; Davies v. Steamboat Co., 94 Me. 379; 53 L. R. A. 239; 47 Atl. 896; Clark v. Murphy, 164 Mass. 490; 41 N. E. 674; Gore v. Assurance Co., 119 Mich. 136; 77 N. W. 650; Clark v. Haupt, 109 Mich. 212; 68 N. W. 231; Olson v. Ry. Co., 81 Minn. 402; 84 N. W. 219; Perrine v. Coo-ley, 42 N. J. L. 623; Law v. Stokes. 32 X. J. L. 249; 90 Am. Dec. 655; Ferguson v. Mfg. Co., 118 N. C. 946; 24 S. E. 710; Thompson v.

Sproul, 179 Pa. St. 266; 36 Atl. 290; Mundis v. Emig, 171 Pa. St. 417; 32 Atl. 1135; Brown v. West, 69 Vt. 440; 38 Atl. 87; Parr v. Mfg. Co., 117 Wis. 278; 93 N. W. 1099; McKindly v. Dunham, 55 Wis. 515; 42 Am. Rep. 740; 13 N. W. 485.

2 Insurance Co. v. Thornton, 130 Ala. 222; 89 Am. St. Rep. 30; 55 L. R. A. 547; 30 So. 614; Planters', etc., Fire Association v. De Loach, 113 Ga. 802; 39 S. E. 466; Deffen-baugh v. Mfg. Co., 120 Mich. 242; 79 N. W. 197; Spelman v. Milling Co., 26 Mont. 76; 55 L. R. A. 640; 66 Pac. 597; Chase v. Swift, 60 Neb. 696; 83 Am. St. Rep. 552; 84 N. W. 86; Carney v. Ins. Co., 162 N. Y. 453; 76 Am. St. Rep. 347; 49 L. R. A. 471; 57 N. E. 78; Fargo v. Cravens, 9 S. D. 646; 70 N. W. 1053.

3 Littleton v. Loan, etc., Association, 97 Ga. 172; 25 S. E. 826; Gor-ham v. Felker, 102 Ga. 260; 28 S. E. 1002; Wynne v. Parke, 89 Tex. 413; 34 S. W. 907; Wells v. Ins. Co., 41 W. Va. 131; 23 S. E. 527.

4 Rigby v. Lowe, 125 Cal. 613; 58 Pac. 153; Baldwin Fertilizer Co. v. Thompson, 106 Ga. 480; 32 S. E. 591; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Gray, 107 Ga. 110; 32 S. E. 948; Jones v. Brand, 106 Ky. 410; 50 S. W. 679; Hardwick v. Kirwan, 91 Md. 285; 46 Atl. 987; Norton v. Nevills, 174 Mass. 243; 54 N. E. 537; Mann v. Oil Co., 92 Tex. 377; 48 S. W. 567.

5 Harris v. Banking Co., 91 Ga. 317; 18 S. E. 159.

6 Schmidt v. Shaver, 196 111. 108; 89 Am. St. Rep. 250; 63 N. E. 655.

7 Alcorn v. Buschke, 133 Cal. 655; 66 Pac. 15.

8 Baldwin v. Tucker, 112 Ky. 282; 65 S. W. 841.

So a principal is not bound where an agent with mere power to sell, inserts in a contract a clause for interest in case of delay in delivery,9 or makes specific representations that the threshing-machine sold by him has been shipped, thereby inducing the vendee to deliver his old machine in part payment, and thus leaving him without any threshing machine when needed.10 So if an insurance agent delivers a policy which by its terms is not to take effect until the first premium is paid, and the insured agrees to pay therefor by giving the agent credit for such premium on his private account, the insurance company is not liable if the agent does not account to it for such premium.11 So if an insurance policy shows on its face that an agent has no authority to waive certain provisions thereof, an attempted waiver by an agent not having such authority in fact is invalid.12 So while a rule of an express company that express orders must be signed by their local agent does not prevent recovery on express orders signed by a clerk in the office of the local agent, such rule not being known,13 yet if this clerk had solicited business outside the office and had made no charge therefore, the person buying such orders with knowledge of these facts must take notice that such business is outside the apparent authority of an express agent. So an agent who has merely power to sell cannot bind his principal by a contract of sale which provides for payment in something other than cash, such as lumber,14 secondhand machinery,15 or a note and a certificate of deposit.16 An agent with authority to inspect lumber cannot bind his principal by agreeing to accept lumber which he has not inspected.17 So an agent with authority only to collect rents cannot bind his principal by a contract to lease.18 So a principal is not bound by the act of his agent after the authority of such agent is known to the third person to be revoked.19 Thus an agent originally authorized to sell realty, cannot bind his principal by accepting money from a vendee and putting him in possession, after such vendee knows that the principal has already sold the realty to another.20 If the contract of the agent exceeds his authority, it will be held good as far as his authority extends if such part can be separated from the rest. Thus if an attorney in fact is authorized to execute a quit-claim deed only, a warranty deed executed by him will pass title, though the covenant of warranty will not bind the. principal.21

9 Hardwick v. Kirwan, 91 Md. 285; 46 Atl. 987.

10 J. L. Case, etc., Co. v. Eichin-ger, 15 S. D. 530; 91 N. W. 82.

11 Tomsecek v. Ins. Co., 113 Wis. 114; 57 L. R. A. 455; 88 N. W. 1013.

12 Thornton v. Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 121; 94 Am. St. Rep. 99; 42 S. E. 287; Cook v. Ins. Co., 84 Mich. 12; 47 N. W. 568; Cleaver v. Ins. Co., 65 Mich 527; 8 Am. St. Rep. 908; 32 N. W. 660.

13 Rohrbangh v. Express Co., 50 W. Va. 148; 88 Am. St. Rep. 849; 40 S. E. 398.

14 J. A. Fay, etc., Co. v. Causey, 131 N. C. 350; 42 S. E. 827.

15 Elfring v. Birdsall Co., - S. D. - ; 92 N. W. 29.

16 Wilken v. Voss, 120 Ia. 500; 94 N. W. 1123.

17 Campbellsville Lumber Co. v. Spotswood (Ky.), 74 S. W. 235.