Ratification may be made expressly,1 even if the adversary parties have repudiated the contract,2 as by insisting on new conditions which are accepted,3 or it may be implied from the conduct of the principal,4 as by accepting the proceeds of the contract.5 This rule is sometimes stated in the form that retention

3 Upton v. Dennis, - Mich. - ; 94 N. W. 728.

4 McDermott v. Jackson, 102 Wis. 419; 78 N. W. 598; same case, 97 Wis. 64; 72 N. W. 375.

5 Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Smith-ville (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 S. W. 412.

6 Hunter v. Cobe, 84 Minn. 187; 87 N. W. 612.

7 Plumb v. Curtis, 66 Conn. 154; 33 Atl. 998.

8 Fortune v. Stockton, 182 111. 454; 55 N. E. 367; affirming 82 111. App. 272.

9 Brown v. Henry, 172 Mass. 559; 52 N. E. 1073.

1 Pope v. Armsby Co., 1ll Cal. 159; 43 Pac. 589; Brown v. Wilson, 45 S. C. 519; 55 Am. St. Rep. 779; 23 S. E. 630; Johnson v. Mfg. Co., 103 Wis. 291; 79 N. W. 236.

2 Tiedemann v Ledermann Freres (1899). 2 Q. B. 66.

3 Robert, etc., Co. v. Mfg. Co., 173 Pa. St. 447; 34 Atl. 450.

96

4 Fant v. Campbell, 8 Okla. 586; 58 Pac. 741.

5 Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 410; 38 Am. Rep. 13; Wagoner v. Silva, 139 Cal. 559; 73 Pac. 433; Duncan v. Kearney, 72 Conn. 585; 45 Atl. 358; Smith v. Holbrook, 99 Ga. 256; 25 S. E. 627; Booth v. Wiley, 102 111. 84; France v. Haynes, 67 Ia. 139; 25 N. W. 98; Noble v. White, 103 Ia. 352; 72 N. W. 556; Higbee v. Trumbauer, 112 Ia. 74; 83 N. W. 812; Fleischman v. Ver Does, 111 Ia. 322; 82 N. W. 757; Blaess v. Nichols Shepard Co.. 115 Ia. 373; 88 N. W. 829; Cassady v. Ins. Co., 109 Ia. 539; 80 N. W. 521; State Bank v. Kelly. 109 la. 544;

80 N. W. 520; J. P. Calnan Construction Co. v. Brown, 110 Ia. 37;

81 N. W. 163; White v. Creamery Co.. 108 Ia. 522; 79 N. W. 283; Russ v. Hansen. 119 Ia. 375; 93 N. W. 502; McKinstry v. Bank. 57 Kan. 279; 46 Pac. 302; Graves v. Cord (Ky.), 44 S. W. 665; Singer of the proceeds of the contract estops the principal to deny the agency.6 Thus a vendor who receives and retains the price of machinery cannot avoid a warranty thereof made by the agent who sold it.7 So a vendee is liable for property bought for him by his agent without authority and received and accepted by him.8 Retaining property received under the agent's contract is not ratification where rejection is impossible, as where the material was built into the principal's house,9 or repairs were made upon property owned by the principal.10 Ratification may be effected by accepting services under the contract,11 or suing thereon ;12 or by acquiescence therein with knowledge of the facts,13 if for such a length of time that third parties have in the meanwhile acted in reliance on such acquiescence ;14 or by payment under such contract,15 or by receiving money thereunder.10 Acquiescence for three years17 tends to show ratification. Mere failure to disavow an act of one who is not an agent does not amount to ratification unless such silence induces others to act in reliance upon the apparent validity of the transaction.18 But retention of a thing of no value as a deed made without principal's authority to a third person is not ratification.19 So refusal to receive the purchase money when tendered excuses the principal from making tender of the purchase notes.20 To constitute ratification the money or property received must he received under the unauthorized contract. So if a lease made by an agent without authority is expressly repudiated by the principal, but he allows the tenant to remain from month to month at the rent fixed by the lease, this is not a ratification.21 If X, the agent of A, a steamship company, issues a bill of lading before receiving the goods, and A repudiates the contract as soon as it learns of it, A's act in taking property from X to secure A against any liability upon such bill is not ratification.22 So if the principal claims damages from his agent for making an unauthorized contract, this does not amount to a ratification.23

Mfg. Co. v. Stephens (Ky.), 53 S. W. 525; Sokup v. Letellier, 123 Mich. 640; 82 N. W. 523; Payn v. Gidley, 122 Mich. 605; 81 N. W. 558; Payne v. Hackney, 84 Minn. 195; 87 N. W. 608; Anderson v. Johnson, 74 Minn. 171; 77 N. W. 26; Wright v. Church, 72 Minn. 78; 74 N. W. 1015; Day v. Miller, 1 Neb. (Un.) 107; 95 N. W. 359; Smith v. Barnard, 148 N. Y. 420; 42 N. E. 1054; Williams v. Lumber Co., 118 N. C. 928; 24 S. E. 800; Woodward v. Suydam, 11 Ohio 360; Welch v. Mfg. Co., 55 S. C. 568; 33 S. E. 739; Marks v. Taylor, 23 Utah 152; 63 Pac. 897; modified, 23 Utah 470; 65 Pac. 203; Field v. Doyon, 64 Wis. 560; 25 N. W. 653; Kriz v. Peege, 119 Wis. 105; 95 N. W. 108. 6 Lull v. Bank, 110 Ia. 537; 81 N. W. 784.

7 Blaess v. Nichols Shepard Co., 115 Ia. 373; 88 N. W. 829.

8 Haney, etc., Co. v. Institute, 113 Ga. 289; 38 S. E. 761.

9 Moyle v. Society, 16 Utah 69; 50 Pac. 806.

10 Forman v. The Liddesdale (1900), A. C. 190 (repair of a ship).

11 People's National Bank v. Geist-hardt, 55 Neb. 232; 75 N. W. 582.

12 Curnane v. Scheidel. 70 Conn. 13; 38 Atl. 875; Shoninger v. Pea-body, 57 Conn. 42; 14 Am. St. Rep. 88; 17 Atl. 278; Warder, etc., Co. v. Cuthbert, 99 Ia. 681; 68 N. W. 917; Edgar v. Breck. 172 Mass. 581; 52 N. E. 1083; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Mil-lage, 14 S. D. 331; 85 N. W. 594.

13 Market, etc., Co. v. Hellman, 109 Cal. 571; 42 Pac. 225; J. B. Owens Pottery Co. v. Turnbull Co., 75 Conn. 628; 54 Atl. 1122; Glucose, etc., Co. v. Flinn. 184 111. 123; 56 N. E. 400; affirming 85 111. App. 131; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Flynn, 63 Minn. 475; 65 N. W. 923 (acquiescence for two years) ; Lyle v. Ad-dicks, 62 N. J. Eq. 123; 49 Atl. 1121; Hanover National Bank v. American, etc., Co.. 148 N. Y. 612; 51 Am. St. Rep. 721; 43 N. E. 72.

14 Smith v. Fletcher, 75 Minn. 189: 77 N. W. 800; Dewing v. Hut-ton, 48 W. Va. 576: 37 S. E. 670; Roundy v. Erspamer, 112 Wis. 181; 87 N. W. 1087.

If the conduct of another agent is relied upon as ratification, such other agent must himself have authority to perform or to ratify such act.24

15 Mullaney v. Evans, 33 Or. 330; 54 Pac. 886; Anderson v. Surety Co., 196 Pa. St. 288; 46 Atl. 306.

16 Des Moines National Bank v. Meredith, 114 Ia. 9; 86 N. W. 46; Dillaway v. Alden, 88 Me. 230; 33 Atl. 981.

17 Cheshire Provident Institution v. Vandergrift, 1 Neb. (Un.) 339; 95 N. W. 615.

18 Robbins v. Blanding, 87 Minn. 246; 91 N. W. 844.

19 Bromley v. Aday, 70 Ark. 351;

68 S. W. 32. (In this case the abstract, too, was retained.)

20 Cole v. Baker, - S. D. -; 9i N. W. 324.

21 Owens v. Swanton, 25 Wash. 112; 64 Pac. 921.

22 Lazard v. Transportation Co., 78 Md. 1; 26 Atl. 897.

23 Jameson v. Colwell, 25 Ore. 199; 35 Pac. 245.

24 Fay v. Slaughter, 194 111. 157; 88 Am. St. Rep. 148; 56 L. R. A. 564; 62 N. E. 592; Bohanan v. R. R., 70 N. H. 526; 49 Atl. 103.