Unknown County MsArchives Court.....Landsdale, B.C. 1834
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://usgwarchives.net/ms/msfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines ddhaines@gmail.com December 8, 2005, 9:37 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases Adjudged In The Supreme Court Of Mississippi
Written: 1834
Recorded: 1818

B. C. LANDSDALE vs. E. SHACKLEFORD

pages 149-150

A special agent, Who exceeds his authority, does not bind his principle, 
unless the latter ratifies his acts.

Any act of a general agent within the limits of his ostensible powers, as a 
factor, or consignee, binds the principle, tho' he may have given secret 
instructions to pursue a different course.

OPINION OF THE COURT - BY THE HON. POWHATTAN ELLIS

This is an action of trespass on the case, on a promissory note, trial and 
verdict for the plaintiff at the September term, 1823. On a motion for a new 
trial, the judge doubting as to the rule of decision, referred the cause to 
this court, and made the following report:

When this cause came on to be heard, the plaintiff by his attorney, Joseph E. 
Davis, Esquire, in support of the declaration, offered in evidence a note of 
hand, bearing date 1st April, 1819, signed for E. Shackelford & Co. by Samuel 
B. Furguson. To the introduction of this testimony, it was objected by Edward 
Turner, Esq. that the agency of Furguson must first be shewn. A witness was 
introduced, who prayed that E. Shackelford had admitted, that he employed 
Samuel B. Furguson to collect debts, and had sent him for that purpose, but 
instead of collecting the debt, he had purchased land, and given this note as 
part of the purchase money. That he brought back with him the certificate 
assigned to Shackleford, who was dissatisfied with the bargain, but accepted 
the land, and in order to secure himself, took possession thereof, and still 
holds the same.—The court charged the jury, that whenever a special agent 
exceeds his authority, his principal is not bound by his acts, unlessthe 
principal ratifies and makes them his own. Under that instruction, it was left 
to the jury. It Was offered in evidence, that there had been a firm under the 
name E. Shackleford & Co., composed of E. Shackleford, William Furguson, and 
Samuel B. Furguson. It was not shown that E. Shackleford, and William Furguson 
composed a particular firm by themselves, nor was there any evidence to that 
point. The publication in A. Marshalk's paper, of the dissolution of 
partnership, was shown, and the publication appears to have been some where 
about the beginning of February, 1819. To consider a person as contracting 
through the intervention of an agent, it must appear, that the agent was 
acting within the scope of his authority, or his acts will not bind his 
principal. "An agent is a person who transacts the business of another and by 
his authority," which authority to act, may be either general or special. If 
it be general, any act done by the agent, within the limits of his ostensible 
powers as a factor or consignee, will bind the principal, although there may 
have been secret instructions, directing the agent to pursue a different 
course. 1 Livermore, 107.

But the case is otherwise, when the agent acts under limited and special 
powers, unless the principal ratifies the doings of this special agent, 1 
Livermore, 392. Furguson was a special agent, to transact the collecting 
business of Shackleford, but transcended the bounds of his powers, and 
purchased land, and executed the note for the payment of the purchase money in 
the name of E. Shackelford, and took an assignment of the certificate for his 
benefit; Shackelford expressed some dissatisfaction at the course pursued by 
the agent, but in order to secure his debt, took possession of the land, and 
held it at the time of the trial, which was an undoubted ratification of the 
acts of his agent which must bind him. See 1, Johnson’s cases, 110, 2 T. R. 
188.

Motion for a new trial overruled.


Source: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi, June 
Term, 1818, By R. J. Walker, Reporter of the State. Natchez: Printed at the 
Courier and Journal Office, 1834.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ms/unknown/court/landsdal58gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/msfiles/

File size: 4.5 Kb