be reimbursed for any reasonable pay- | whatever hands they may have come. ments made, or charges incurred in be- But if the principal has permitted the half of his employer. (As to the Roman broker to assume the apparent right of mandatarius, see Gaius, iii. 155-162, selling the goods, he will be bound by a iv. 83, 84; Dig. 17. tit. 1.). sale so apparently authorized. II. It remains to explain the consequences of the relation of principal and agent, as between the parties and third persons: and, first, as between the principal and third persons; and, secondly, as between the agents and third persons. First, then, as between the principal and third persons: it is a general rule that the act of the agent is to be considered as the act of the principal; it gives the principal the same rights, and imposes on him the same obligations, as if he had done it himself. A bargain or agreement entered into by an agent is therefore binding upon his principal, whether it tends to his benefit or his disadvantage; and, in order to have this effect, it is not absolutely necessary that it should actually be within the agent's real authority, either express or implied, provided it be within what may most properly be called his apparent authority that is, provided it is such as the person dealing with the agent might under the circumstances reasonably presume to be within his authority. a Upon the same principle, when general agent is employed, that is, an agent authorized to transact all his employer's business of a particular kind, as to buy and sell certain wares, or to negotiate certain contracts,-he must be presumed to have all the authority usually exercised by agents of the same kind in the ordinary course of their employment: and though the principal may have limited his real authority by express instructions, yet he will not thereby be discharged from obligations incurred in the ordinary course of trade towards persons who have dealt with the agent without any knowledge of such limitation. Thus where an agent purchases goods on credit, the seller may come on the principal for payment: and this right cannot be affected by any private agreement between the principal and agent, by which the agent may have stipulated to be liable to the seller. Although the agent is, in all these cases, ultimately answerable to his employer for any damage that may follow from his having entered into an engagement not within his authority; yet the principal is, in the first instance, bound to keep an engagement so entered into by his agent upon a reasonable presumption of authority. But in the case of a special agent (that is, of a person appointed merely to do certain particular acts), as no presumption of authority can arise from usage of trade, so the principal will not be bound by any act not within the real authority of the agent, and it lies upon those who deal with the agent to ascertain what that authority actually is. An authority may be presumed, first, from the principal's having previously authorized or sanctioned dealings of the same nature. Thus, if a person has been in the habit of employing another to do any act, as, for instance, to draw or indorse bills, he will be answerable for any subsequent acts of the same nature, at least, until it is known, or may reasonably be presumed, that the authority which he had given has ceased. An authority may likewise be presumed from the conduct of the principal, with reference to the subject-matter of the transaction in question. For if a person authorizes another to assume the apparent Thus, in order to illustrate more fully right of engaging in any transactions, the difference in this respect between the apparent authority must, as far as general and special agents:-If a person regards the rights of third persons, be employs a stable-keeper, whose general considered as the real authority. Thus, business it is to sell horses, to sell a para broker employed to purchase has no ticular horse for him, and he warrants authority to sell; and if he does, his em- the horse to be sound, inasmuch as the ployer may (unless the sale was in open giving such warranty is within the ordimarket) reclaim the goods so sold, intonary course of his employment, the owner goods for his general balance, he has a right to require the buyer to pay him instead of his principal: and such payment to the factor, notwithstanding any notice given by the principal, will be a discharge of the debt. will be bound by such warranty, even though he may have directed expressly that none should be given; but if he employs another person to sell his horse, whose ordinary business it is not to sell horses, then, although, if he has given no orders to the contrary, the agent will A principal is in general liable for all be justified in giving a warranty, as being damage occasioned to third persons by a thing incidental to the main object of the negligence or unskilfulness of his his employment; yet if he has given ex-agent when he acts within the scope of press orders that no warranty should be given, and the agent gives a warranty in opposition to his orders, he will not be bound by it. As the agreement made by an agent, so likewise all his dealings in connection with it, provided they are within his real | or apparent authority, are as binding on the principal as if they were his own acts. Thus the representations made by an agent, at the time of entering into an agreement (if they constitute a part of such agreement, or are in any way the foundation of or inducement to it), and, in many cases, even the admissions of an agent as to anything directly within the course of his employment, will have the same effect as if such representations or admissions had been made by the principal himself. So also if notice of any fact is given, or if goods are delivered to an agent, it will be considered as notice or delivery to the principal. And in general, payment to an agent has the same effect as if it had been made to the principal, and in such cases the receipt of the agent is the receipt of the principal. But such payment is not valid if it is not warranted by the apparent authority of his agent. Thus, if money is due on a written security, as long as the security remains in the hands of an agent it is to be presumed that he is authorized to receive the money, and payment to him will therefore discharge the debt: but if the agent has not the security in his possession, the debtor pays him at his own risk, and will be liable, in case the agent should not account for it to his principal, to pay it over again. If the principal gives notice to the buyer not to pay the money to the factor with whom he made the bargain, he will in general not be justified in doing so; but if the factor had a lien upon the his employment; and for any misconduct or fraud committed by him, if it be either at his express command or within the limits of his implied authority. From this liability, however, it is reasonable that those persons should be exempted who, though they appear in some degree in the character of principals, yet have no power in the appointment of those who act under them. Thus the postmasters-general, and persons at the head of other public offices, have been held not to be liable for the conduct of their inferior officers. On the same principle, the owners and masters of vessels are by statute released from all liability to third persons from the negligence or unskilfulness of the pilots by whom they are navigated into port. It now remains to state what are the effects of the relation of principal and agent, as between the agent and third persons. An agent is not in general personally responsible on any contract entered into by him on behalf of his principal: to this rule, however, there are several exceptions. First. If an agent has so far exceeded his authority that his principal is not bound by his act; as for instance, if an agent without any authority undertakes for his principal to pay a certain sum, or if a special agent warrants goods, contrary to his instructions; and the principal refuses to adopt such undertaking or warranty, the agent alone is liable to the person to whom it was given. Secondly, an agent is liable when the contract was made with him not as agent. And, therefore, if in any contract made on behalf of his principal, the agent binds himself by his own express undertaking, or if the circumstances of the transaction are such that the credit was originally given to him and not to the principal (whether such principal were known at the time or not), in either of these cases he will be liable, in the first instance, to the persons with whom he has dealt. | ticular manner, in violation of good faith converts it to his own use; or if an agent who is intrusted with any chattel, valuable security, or power of attorney for the transfer of stock, either for safe custody or for any special purpose, in violation of good faith, and without authority, sells or pledges, or in any manner converts the same to his own use, he is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable with fourteen years' transportation, or to fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. But this does not extend to prevent his disposing of so much of any securities or effects on which he has a lien or demand, as may be requisite for the satisfaction thereof. It is also a misdemeanor, punishable in the same manner, if a factor or agent employed to sell, and intrusted with the goods or the docu For the same reason, when an agent takes upon himself to act in his own name, and gives no notice of his being employed in behalf of another personas if a factor delivers goods as his own and conceals his principal-he is to be taken, to all intents, as the principal, and the persons who have dealt with him are entitled to all the same rights against him as if he actually were so. They may, for instance, in an action by the principal on demand arising from such transactions, set off a debt due from the agent himself; which they could not have done, if they had known that he acted only as an agent. And if he after-ments relating to them, pledges either the wards discloses his principal, he is, nevertheless, not discharged from his liability, -those with whom he has dealt may, at their option, come either upon him on his personal contract, or on the principal upon the contract of his agent. An agent is responsible to third persons for any wrongful acts, whether done by the authority of his principal or not; and in most instances the person injured may seek compensation either from the principal or the agent, at his option. An agent cannot delegate to another the authority which he has received, so as to create between his employer and that other person the relation of principal and agent; but he may employ other persons under him to perform his engagements, and the original agent is responsible to his principal as well for the conduct of such sub-agents as for his own: but with respect to damage sustained by third persons from the wrongful acts of such sub-agents, the case is different; such damages must be recovered either from the person who in fact did the injury, or from the principal for whom the act was done. The original agent is responsible to third persons only for his own acts, and such as are done at his command. If an agent who is intrusted with money or valuable security, with written directions to apply the same in any par one or the other, as a security for any money borrowed or intended to be borrowed, provided such sum of money is greater than the amount which was at the time due to the agent from the principal, together with any acceptances of the agent on behalf of his principal. (Stat. 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 49, &c.) The 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39, entitled "An Act to amend the law relating to advances bona fide made to agents intrusted with goods," facilitates and gives protection to the common practice of making advances on the security of goods or documents to persons known to have possession thereof as agents only. According to the above act, any agent who is in the possession of goods or of the documents of title to them is to be held in law as the owner, to the effect of giving "validity to any contract or agreement by way of pledge, lien, or security bonâ fide made by any person with such agent." The agent may receive back commodities or titles which have been pledged for an advance and may replace them with others, but the lender's lien is not to extend beyond the value of the original deposit. The documents which are held to authorize the agent in disposing of property represented by them, and the transference of which is a sufficient security to the lender, are"any bill of lading, India warrant, dockwarrant, warehouse-keeper's certificate, warrant or order for the delivery of goods, or any other document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or control of goods, or authorizing or purporting to authorize, oither by indorsement or delivery, the possessor of such document to transfer or receive goods thereby represented." The property represented by any document is held to be conveyed as soon as the document is transferred, although the property is not in the agent's hands; and an advance of money on consignment or indorsation is valid although the consignment or indorsation do not take place at the date of the agreement. A contract by the agent's clerk, or any person acting for him, is binding. An agent granting a fraudulent security is liable to transportation, or such other punishment by fine or imprisonment, or both, as the court may award. There are provisions in the act for enabling the owner to redeem his goods while they remain unsold, on satisfying the person who holds them as a security; and for protecting the principal in the case of the agent's bankruptcy. AGIO, a term used to denote the difference between the real and nominal value of moneys. The Italian word Agio means ease or convenience; but the Italian for agio, in the sense in which we use the word, is aggio, which is explained to mean "an exchange of money for which the banker has some consideration." The word is used sometimes to express the variations from fixed pars or rates of exchange, but more generally to indicate by per centages the differences in the valuations of moneys. The following is a simple instance of the meaning of the term agio, as it is given by Ganilh (Dictionnaire Analytique d'Economie Politique):-"Five gold pieces of 20 francs, as they issue from the mint, are worth 100 francs. But if they have been reduced in weight, either by the wear of circulation or by improper means, to the amount of 5 per cent., their real value is only 95 francs, though their nominal value remains the same. The sum of 5 francs, which is necessary to make the real equal to the nominal value, is the agio." The metallic currency of wealthy states generally consists of its own coin exclusively, and it is in the power of the state to prevent the degradation of that coin below the standard, so that no calculations of agio, strictly so called, are rendered necessary. In smaller states, the currency seldom entirely consists of their own coin, but is made up of the clipt, worn, and diminished coins of the neighbouring countries with which the inhabitants have dealings. Under these circumstances, banks were, at different times, established by the governments of Venice, Hamburg, Genoa, Amsterdam, &c., which, under the guarantee of the state, should be at all times bound to receive deposits and to make payments, according to some standard value. The money or obligations of these banks, being better than the fluctuating and deteriorated currency of the country, bears a premium equivalent to the deterioration, and this premium is called the agio of the bank. To facilitate his money-dealings, every merchant trading in a place where the deterioration of the currency is thus remedied, must have an account with the bank for the purpose of paying the drafts of his foreign correspondents, which drafts are always stipulated to be paid in bank or standard money. The practice being thus universal, the commercial money-payments of the place are usually managed without the employment of coin, by a simple transfer in the books of the bank from the account of one merchant to that of another. The practical convenience which this plan of making their payments affords to merchants, who would otherwise be obliged, when discharging obligations incurred in standard money, to undergo troublesome and expensive examinations of the various coins in use, causes the money of the bank to bear a small premium above its intrinsic superiority over the money in circulation, so that the agio of the bank does not usually form an exact measure of that superiority. As the current coins of every country have a kind of medium value at which they are generally taken, the term agio is also applied to express what must be be paid over and above this medium value. But the kinds of money on which, in the case of exchange, an agio is paid, are not always the more valuable intrinsically, but those which are most in request. For instance, when either gold or paper money is in demand for the purpose of being sent out of the country, those who hold the one or the other may keep it back till an agio is offered them in the current silver money; and a long period may often elapse before a sufficient quantity of the gold coin that has been sent out has come back to enable people to have it without an agio, while it may happen that at a subsequent time an agio must be paid in order to procure current silver money in place of the gold coin. (Rotteck, Staats-Lexicon.) The term agio is also used to signify the rate of premium which is given when a person having a claim which he can legally demand in only one metal, chooses to be paid in another. Thus in France silver is the only legal standard, and payments can be demanded only in silver coin, a circumstance which is found to be so practically inconvenient, that the receiver will frequently pay a small premium in order to obtain gold coin, which is more easily transportable: this premium is called the agio on gold. There are various meanings of agio in the French language, which are perversions of the proper and original meaning. AGIOTAGE, in the French language, is a new word, which is used to express speculations on the rise and fall of the public debt of states, or the public funds, as they are often called. The person who speculates on such rise or fall is called Agioteur. (Ganilh, Dict. Analytique d'Economie Politique.) AGNATE. [CONSANGUINITY.] AGRARIAN LAWS (Agraria Leges). Those enactments were called Agrarian laws by the Romans which related to the public lands (Ager Publicus). The objects of these Agrarian laws were various. A law (lex) for the establishment of a colony and the assignment of tracts of land to the colonists was an Agrarian law. The laws which regulated the use and enjoyment of the public lands, and gave the ownership of portions of them to the commonalty (plebes) | were also Agrarian laws. Those Agrarian laws indeed which assigned small allotments to the plebeians, varying in amount from two jugera to seven jugera (a jugerum is about three-fourths of an English acre), were among the most important; but the Agrarian laws, or those clauses of Agrarian laws which limited the amount of public land which a man could use and enjoy, are usually meant when the term Agrarian laws is now used. The origin of the Roman public land, or of the greater part of it, was this: Rome had originally a small territory, but by a series of conquests carried on for many centuries she finally obtained the dominion of the whole Italian peninsula. When the Romans conquered an Italian state, they seized a part of the lands of the conquered people; for it was a Roman principle that the conquered people lost everything with the loss of their political independence; and what they enjoyed after the conquest was a gift from the generosity of the conqueror. A state which submitted got better terms than one which made an obstinate resistance. Sometimes a third of their land was taken from the conquered state, and sometimes two-thirds. It is not said how this arrangement was effected; whether each landholder lost a third, or whether an entire third was taken in the lump, and the conquered people were left to equalize the loss among themselves. But there were probably in all parts of Italy large tracts of uncultivated ground which were under pasture, and these tracts would form a part of the Roman share, for we find that pasture land was a considerable portion of the Roman public land. The ravages of war also often left many of the conquered tracts in a desolate condition, and these tracts formed part of the conqueror's share. The lands thus acquired could not always be carefully measured at the time of the conquest, and they were not always immediately sold or assigned to the citizens. The Roman state retained the ownership of such public lands as were not sold or given in allotments, but allowed them to be occupied and enjoyed by any Roman citizen, or, according to some, by the patricians only at first, and in some cases |