in a better way and at greater expense than would have been the case had she gone to the poorhouse. The town then brought an action against Williams to recover the sum of money thus expended, and the lower court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the husband liable; but this judgment was overruled by the supreme court, which held as follows:

"An action may be maintained by the town against the husband for the support of his wife as a pauper. But she does not carry to the town the credit of her husband. A town cannot, as a trader might, supply her with necessaries suitable to her condition in life. The only power of the town is under the pauper laws. If she is in need of relief, the town may supply it, but as to a pauper. The overseers who have her in charge are of course to exercise a sound discrétion in determining whether or not she shall be sent to the poorhouse, and as to what is necessary for her relief as a poor person. But in the exercise of this discretion, they cannot take into consideration her circumstances as the wife of the defendant; nor can this consideration influence them in determining the amount to be expended. That would be to apply to this mode of support the rule adopted in the supply of necessaries; and in cases like this, where the husband is a person of large fortune, the rule would allow the overseers of the poor to support her in a style not only of comfort, but to some degree of luxury. (New Bedford v. Chace, 5 Gray, 28.) If the husband has unjustly expelled his wife from his house and refused to support her, her friends may supply her wants and recover the amount expended of the husband. The legal tribunals of the country are also

open to her for redress. But in this form of relief she can recover support only as a pauper."

The redress referred to as open to her by appeal to the courts, is application for a separate support, or for a divorce with alimony.

What the Term "Necessaries" Includes.

As to the meaning of the term "necessaries," as applied to the support of a wife, an eminent judge once remarked: "It is said in the books that necessaries consist only of food, drink, clothing, washing, physic, instruction and a suitable place of residence." "Instruction" does not include religious instruction. A church pew has been held not to be a necessary.

As to medical treatment, it is not quite decided how far a wife is justified in insisting on a certain class of treatment, if that which is reasonably reliable is furnished by the husband. Thus if the husband sends an allopathic physician to attend his wife, but she will not see him and calls in a homeopathist, it is doubtful whether the latter could recover from the husband for his services. If no medical treatment is provided by the husband, however, the wife who is in need thereof may choose what method of treatment she will employ, and bind her husband thereby. But it has been held in one state that if a wife calls in a clairvoyant, the husband need not pay for this class of treatment, it being a luxury, not a necessary.

CHAPTER VIII.

COMPETENCY OF PARTIES, CONTINUED.

Agency Continued - How Agent's Contract Should be Made to Bind the Principal-In Regard to Sealed Instruments and Negotiable Paper-Principal May be Liable for Agent's Fraud-For His Torts-For His Crimes-Termination of an Agency.

How Agent's Contracts Should be Made.

Care should be observed by every one who acts as agent, so to conduct matters as to bind only his principal by the contract, and not himself. By carelessness, agents have often laid themselves liable, sometimes to their financial ruin. An agent should do all business in the name of his principal, and never in his own name; or in cases where it may be necessary to use his own name, he should sign for the principal.

It is especially essential in deeds, mortgages and all other scaled instruments, when one acts as agent for the grantor, that the principal's name, and not the agent's, shall appear in each part of the deed.

Thus if John Brown owns land, and gives a power of attorney to Sarah Brown to act for him in its conveyance, the deed should be drawn to the effect that "I, John Brown, do hereby convey," etc. The deed may be signed "John Brown" merely, or "John

Brown, by Sarah Brown, agent," and Sarah Brown may acknowledge the deed, but she acknowledges it as being "the free act and deed of John Brown."

In regard to promissory notes and other contracts not under seal, the rule is not so strict as in deeds, it being enough if the principal's name appears somewhere in the paper, showing that the intent of the parties was to bind the principal, and not the agent. Still it is always much better to use the principal's name throughout, thus:

"I, John Brown, for a valuable consideration, do hereby promise to pay, etc.

By Sarah Brown, Ag't." If, instead of following this form, it be written, “I, Sarah Brown, as agent for John Brown, do hereby promise to pay," and the signature be "Sarah Brown" merely, John Brown would be bound by the note, but it is better not to use the agent's name at all in the body of the contract, for by some simple misuse of words, the agent may find she has bound herself. Thus it has been held that where a note was written, "I, Sarah Brown, on behalf of John Brown, do promise" etc., the agent, and not the principal, was bound.

Another thing which is essential to the validity of an agent's acts has already been mentioned. He must be careful to act strictly within the scope of his authority in every case.

Principal's Liability for Agent's Fraud.

The principal and his agent are by law considered so entirely one person, that the former may not only be liable for the latter's contracts, but also, in some

cases, for wrongful acts which he may do while in performance of his duty as agent

For instance, if he is guilty of any kind of fraudulent dealings, the principal is responsible for the fraud in all cases where he knew that it was to be perpetrated by the agent, and did not interfere to prevent it; and even if he was ignorant of it at the time, but consented to it afterward and received the profits arising from it. This, like any other ratification of an agent's act, makes the principal liable.

So if the principal causes the agent to make false statements concerning his business, the principal knowing their falsity but the agent ignorant thereof, the principal is liable for the fraud.

Principal's Liability for Agent's Torts..

A principal is responsible for all torts committed by his agent while engaged in the former's business, when such acts are done with the intention of forwarding the business.

It is often a nice point to decide whether or not the acts are committed while engaged in the principal's business. But the subject will not be pursued further here, as it is treated at some length in another part of the book. [See Negligence, Chapter 40.]

Principal's Liability for Agent's Crimes.

A principal may even be responsible for his agent's crimes, if the act be done by his consent, expressed or implied; or if it be done while the servant is engaged in carrying out his employer's orders, the latter not having expressly forbidden the act. Thus, an apothecary is responsible for the act of his clerk who sells poisons or liquor without compliance with the statu