Their powers and liabilities.

To liability of undisclosed principal for unauthorized act of agent, see Thomson v. Davenport, (1829) 2 Sm. L. C. 11th ed. 389, and notes thereto ; Story, Ag. s. 406 and note.

(p) Cooke v. Wilson, (1856) 1 C. B. N. S. 153; 26 L. J. C. P. 15. Generally as to evidence and effect of custom, see Fleet v. Murton, (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 126; 41 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; notes to Thomson v. Davenport, (1829) 2 Sm. L. C. 11th ed. 396 et seq.

(q) Higgins v. Senior, (1841) 8 M. & W. at p. 844 ; Jones v. Littledale, (1837) 6 A. & E. 486; see Ex p. Eartop, (1806) 12 Ves. 352; Williamson v. Barton, (1861) 2 F. & F. 511 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 170; Fuwkens v. Lamb, (1862) 8 Jur. N. S. 385; 31 L. J. Q. B. 98; Paice v. Walker, (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 173; 39 L. J. Ex. 109.

(r) Smethurst v. Mitchell, (1859) 1

E. & E. 622 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 241.

(s) Repetto v. Millars K. and J. Forests, Ltd., 1901, 2 K. B. 306, 310 ; 70 L. J. Q. B. 561, 563; Morel v. Westmoreland (Earl of), 1903, 1 K. B. 64; 72 L. J. K. B. 66.

(t) Appleton v. Rinks, (1804) 5 Ea. 148; Sug. 14th ed. 57; Story, Ag. s. 155. As to cases where agent has a power of attorney, see Conv. Act, 1881, s. 46 ; Conv. Act, 1882, ss. 8, 9, sup. p. 592.

(u) Jones v. Downham, (1843) 4 Q. B. 235 ; S. C. sub nom. Downnwn v. Williams, (1845) 7 Q. B. 103 ; Lewis v. Nicholson, (1852) 18 Q. B. 503; 21 L. J. Q. B. 311 ; Eambro v. Burnand, 1904, 2 K. B. 10 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 669; see Humfrey v. Dale, (1857) 7 E., & B. 266; (1858) E. B. & E. 1004; 26 L. J. Q. B. 137; Southwell v. Bowditeh, (1876) 1 0. B. D. 374 : 45 L. J. C. V. 630.'

And since, as a general rule, a person who signs a contract in his own name without qualification, is prima facie contracting on his own account (d), it is prudent for an agent entering into a contract, by his signature, expressly to state that he does so in that character. But it is not necessary that the signature itself should be qualified by the addition of words implying agency, if the Court can infer that relation from the construction of the document as a whole (e). It is the duty of a person contracting with an agent to see, to the best of his ability, that the agent is acting within his authority (f).

(x) Jenkins v. Hutchinson, (1849) 13 Q. B. 744; 18 L. J. Q. B. 274; Lewis v. Nicholson, sup.; Collen v. Wright, (1857) 7 E. & B. 301 ; affd. 8 ib. 647 ; Ealbot v. Lens, 1901, 1 Ch. 344 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 125 ; and see Randell v. Trimen, (1856) 18 C. B. 786; 25 L. J. C. P. 307 ; Pow v. Davis, (1861) 1 B. & S. 220 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 257 ; Smart v. Haigh, (1893) 9 T. L. R. 488.

(y) Collen v. Wright, sup. ; Dickson v. Renter's Telegram Co., (1877) 3 C. P. D. 1 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 1 ; Fir-bank's Executors v . Humphreys, (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 54 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 57 ; Brown v. Law, (1895) 72 L. T. 778 ; Starkey v. Bank of England, 1903, A. C. 114; 72 L. J. Ch. 402. On the damages recoverable from an agent in such cases, see Re Nat. Coffee Palace Co., (1883) 24 Ch. D.

367; 53 L. J. Ch. 57; Meek v. Wendt, (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 126; Oliver v. Bank of England, 1901, 1 Ch. 652, 665 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 377, 382.

(z) Starkey v. Bank of England, sup.

(a) Halbot v. Lens, 1901, 1 Ch. 344, 349 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 125, 128.

(b) Dunn v. Macdonald, 1897, 1 Q. B. 555 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 420 ; cf. Graham v. Public Works Commrs., 1901, 2 K. B. 781 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 860.

(c) Smout v. Ilberry, (1842) 10 M. & W. 1 ; Salt on v. New Beeston Cycle Co., 1900, 1 Ch. 43 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 20.

(d) 2 Sm. L. C. 11th ed. 400 ; Repetto v. Millar's K. § J. Forests, Ltd., 1901, 2 K. B 306, 310 ; 70 L. J. Q. B. 561, 563

If the terms of a contract are such, as in the opinion of the Court to show an intention that the contracting party shall be personally liable, the mere fact of his signing it "as agent," or using other similar words qualifying his signature, does not necessarily save him from liability (g). Where money has been properly received by an agent, the action to recover it must be brought against the principal (Ii), though it may not have come to his hands (i) ; but a sum paid to an agent in respect of a wrongful claim, may, it appears, be recovered from the agent (,j), though he has paid it over to his principal (k), unless he has acted merely as an agent through whose hands the sum has passed without notice of the claim being wrongful (7).

Contracting party though signing as agent may be personally liable, "when.

Liability of principal for money received by agent.

(e) Gadd v. Houghton, (1876) 1 Ex. D. 357; 46 L. J. Q. B. 71; and see comments on Paice v. Walker, (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 173 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 109, which must now be considered as overruled; Pike v. Ongley, (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 708 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 373 ; Royal Albert Hall Corp. v. Winchelsea,

(1891) 7 T. L. R. 362; Hahn v. North German Pitwood Co., (1892) 8 T. L. R. 557 ; Glover v. Langford,

(1892) 8 T. L. R. 628 ; Beigtheil v. Stewart, (1900) 16 T. L. R. 177, a case, it is submitted, wrongly decided ; Bepctto v. Millar s K. § J.

Forests. Ltd , sup. ; and 2 Sm. L. C. 11th ed. 389 et seq.

(f) See Hambro v. Burnand, 1903,

2 K. B. 399, 410; 72 L. J. K. B. 662; and on appeal, 1901, 2 K. B. 10; 73 L. J. K. B. 669.

(g) Lennard v. Robinson, (1S55) 5 E. & B. 125; 24 L. J. Q. 15. 275; see cases cited in note (e), sup.; Hough v. Manzanos, (1879) 4 Ex. D. 101 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 398; HutcAeson v. Eaton, (1881) 13 Q. B. D. 861.

(h) Duke of Norfolk v. Worthy, (1808) 1 Camp. 337; and Edden v. Bead, (1813) 3 ib. 338 ; Bamford v. Shuttleworth, (1840) 11 A. & E. 926 ; Hurley v. Baker, (1816) 16 M. & W. 26; 16 L.J. Ex. 273 ; aud see Edgell v. Day, (1865) L. R. 1 C. P. 80 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 7, and cases there cited.

(t) Ellis v. Goulton, 1893, 1 Q. B. 350 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 232. As to recovery of money paid by purchaser to assignee of vendor, see Fleming v. loe, 1901, 2 Ch. 594 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 805 ; reversed on the facts, 1902, 2 Ch. 359; 71 L. J. Ch. 687.