In addition to lunatics, and idiots, a child of tender years, that is, one under the age of seven years, is ordinarily lacking in sufficient understanding to make him a proper agent, but above the age of seven years, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the infant may be a proper agent.10 But the principal is in duty bound ordinarily, to engage a responsible agent where that agent is delegated to fulfill a duty to the public, or to third persons. Where the agent is without age, experience, or capacity and the acts to be performed require these elements, he would be an improper agent so far as protecting the rights of third persons are concerned.

A person is disqualified from acting as agent, for another, where his duty to his principal, and his own interests conflict.11 Ordinarily, an agent cannot act as agent for both parties,12 as his duty to one principal would conflict with his duty to the other, but where he acts as agent for both parties, with the full knowledge and consent of both parties, there can be no legal objection to his so acting.13

10 Talbot vs. Bowen, 1 A.k. Marsh.

(Ky.), 436.

11 Rice vs. Wood, 113 Mass., 133.

12 Cotton vs. Halliday, 59 I11., 176. 13 Fitzsimmons vs. Southern Express Co., 40 Ga., 330.