Is doing.

Dreiv V. Nimn (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 661. C. A. ; here the

defendant when sane held out his wife as his agent with

authority to buy goods from the plaintiff. He afterwards

became insane ; but his wife, without giving plaintiff any

notice of her husband's insanity, continued to order goods

from him, which plaintiff supplied in ignorance that the

husband had become insane. The defendant recovered, and

150 The law of agency.

refused to pay for the goods supplied during his insanity.

It was held that the defendant was liable for the price of

the goods on the ground that, whether the insanity put an

end to the authority or not, the defendant, by holding out

his wife as his agent, entered into a contract with the

plaintiff that she had authority to act on his behalf, and

that until plaintiff had notice that his authority was

determined, he was entitled to act upon the defendant's

representations.

In this case the following opinions were expressed by

the Court with regard to the effect of the principal's insanit}'"

upon the authority he had given : —

Brett, L. J., said ; " In my opinion insanity of this kind

does put an end to the agent's authority,

" I may remark that from the mere fact of mental de-

rangement, it ought not to be assumed that a person is

incompetent to contract ; mere weakness of mind or partial

derangement is insufficient to exempt a person from re-

sponsibility upon the engagements into which he has

entered."

Bramwell, L.J., said ; " I think that in order to annul

the authority of an agent, insanity must amount to dementia.

If a man becomes so far insane as to have no mind,

perhaps he ought to be deemed dead for the purposes of

contracting."

In Story's Agency (9th ed, sect. 481), we find it stated ;

" If a principal should become insane, that would or might

operate as a suspension or revocation of the authority

of his agent during the continuance of the insanity ; for the

party himself during his insanity could not personally do

a valid act, and his agent cannot therefore, in virtue of

derivative authority, do a valid act for him."

With regard to the revocation of powers of attorney

by the insanity of the principal — vide sections Sand 9 of the

Conveyancing Act, 1882, which arc set out upon pp. 13G, 137,

DETERMINATION OF AGENCY. 151

ante. Also vide section 47 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881,

set out upon pp. 146, 147, ante.

The insanity of the agent himself will undoubtedly

terminate his authority ; for no principal could intend to

bind himself by anything done by an agent in such a

condition — vide Story's Agency (9th ed. sect. 487).

152 Tee law of agency.

CHAPTER VII.

PUBLIC AGENTS.

Agents who act on behalf of the Public or Government are

called public agents. No action will lie against a public

agent for any contract entered into by him in his public

character or employment. This rule is based on principles

of public policy ; for otherwise persons would often be

deterred from accepting public offices for fear of the number

of actions which might be brought against them.

Macheath v. Haldimand (1786), 1 T. R. 172 ; here it was

held that an official appointed by the Government, and

acting as an agent for the Public, is not liable to be sued

upon contracts entered into by him in that capacity.

Giclley V. Lord Palmer ston (1822), 3 Brod. & Bing. 275 ;

here it was held that an action would not lie against the

Secretary of State for War, at the suit of a retired clerk of

the War Office, for his retired allowance. In giving judg-

ment, Dallas, C. J., said ; " An action will not lie against

a public agent for anything done by him in his public

character or employment, though alleged to be, in the

})articular instance, a breach of such employment, and con-

stituting a particular and personal liability : such persons,

said Loi<l Mansfield, in one of the cases cited at the Bar,

are not understood personally to contract."