322 THE ADVENTURES OF A GENTLEMAN 



tive agency which existed on the fact of an attorney's 

 clerk attending to tax the costs of an action con- 

 ducted by his employer." The case of Cornfoot v. 

 Fowke, in which judgment was delivered in the Court 

 of Exchequer on the 25th of April, 1840, but which 

 is not yet reported, is collaterally a very important 

 one, in considering the limits within which an agent 

 can bind his principal. The defendant had taken a 

 house of the plaintiff through the agency of Mr. 

 Elkins, a house-agent. Mr. Elkins had stated that 

 there was "nothing objectionable about the house;" 

 but the defendant, after signing the agreement, dis- 

 covered that the adjoining house was a brothel, and 

 that this was known to the plaintiff, who had endeav- 

 ored in vain to put down the nuisance. Mr. Elkins, 

 the agent, was, however, ignorant of the fact. Lord 

 Abinger, at the trial, thought this was a good defence 

 to the plaintiff's action, and held that "the knowledge 

 of the plaintiff was to be taken to be that of the agent 

 also, and that though there was no proof of any 

 authority to the agent to make the alleged misrepre- 

 sentation, still, in the eye of the law, he must be 

 bound by the act of his agent." 



The court, after much consideration, overruled this 



