In addition to the agency coupled with an interest, that is where the agent's interest is in the thing itself, in addition to the interest he has in the execution of the power vested in him, there is another kind of agency where the principal may not revoke the authority that the agent has in the agency, that is, when the revocation of the authority would involve the agent in liability to third persons. Such an agency is said to exist where the agent has been given certain funds for the purpose of paying the principal's debts and has himself promised the creditors to pay.37

The statement in the authority that the agency is an irrevocable one does not prevent the person giving such authority from revoking the power even though the express terms of the contract positively state that it is not to be revoked.38

The Illinois Court in the case of Walker vs. Denison, after quoting from the rule, that the agency is irrevocable in the case of a power coupled with an interest, and in the case of an agency given for a valuable consideration, shows how this case differs from such an agency, in that the party claiming such an interest here is shown only to have an interest in that which is produced by the exercise of the power, and no interest in the thing itself.

5 1 Conley vs. Berson, 1 Heisk

(Tenn.), 145. 36 Goodwin vs. Bowden, 54 Me., 424.

37 Rhodes vs. Forwood, 1 App.

Cas., 256.

38 Walker vs. Denison, 86 I11., 142.

The Court further says that the case, "does not fall within the other exception - of an instrument having been given for a valuable consideration or as a part of a security." The power of attorney itself was not given for any such independent purpose. All that can be said in that regard is that the particular clause in the instrument against revocation might be beneficial to the agent appointed, in the way of profit derivable from the exercise of the agency, and the securing compensation for any service and expenditure therein. We do not consider that any such consideration or security respecting the mere benefit to the agent from the exercising of the power, should at least under the circumstances here, debar the principal from revoking the power. For any legal injury the agent may have sustained from the revocation, he may have his remedy upon the covenant not to revoke.38

39 Sharp vs. Jones, 18 Ind., 314.