210 BAILIFFS POWER TO BI^^D MASTER. 



state of facts as this, every farm agent might pledge the credit of his 

 employer to an indefinite extent. Here there was no direct authority; 

 and the case of Murmij v. The East India Oonipani/ establishes that a 

 (jcncral authority to receive and pay does not authorise the agent to 

 indorse bills of exchange. Here it was never shown that the defendant 

 knew or had the means of knowing that his name was used in the 

 manner in Avhich it was used by the bailiff" {ih.). 



Lord Denman C.J. thus laid down the law in Truman v. Loder as to 

 a ha ilifrs power to hind his master hij his contracts: "Suppose a landed 

 proprietor to send his steward habitually to the neighbouring fairs and 

 markets to make sales and purchases for him in matters connected with 

 the management of his estate ; that the steward makes all these contracts 

 in his own name, but that he is universally known to have no land of 

 his own, and to be acting solely for his employer, and by his direction and 

 on his credit ; could his intention to make himself the owner of articles 

 bought on one particular occasion in the course of the same dealing 

 deprive the vendor of his recourse against the master ? Clearly not." 

 In the case of Tassell v. Cooper, where the plaintiff, the farming bailiff' 

 of Lord De L'Isle (after his employment as such had ceased) received a 

 check of =£1S0 in payment for wheat belonging to his lordship, which 

 he had sold on his own account while acting as bailiff, and paid it in to 

 his own account with B. and Co., his bankers, who received the cash for 

 it, and gave him credit for the amount; but afterwards, under an in- 

 demnity fi'om Lord De L'Isle, refused to honour his drafts ; it was held 

 that even assuming that the check had been improperly obtained by the 

 plaintiff, still, as between him and his bankers, the amount was recover- 

 able by him as money had and received by them to his use, or as money 

 paid. The plaintiff had been in the habit, in 1844-6, of managing Lord 

 De L'Isle's home farm, and receiving large sums from the sale of the 

 produce on his lordship's account, and paid the various charges and ex- 

 penses, and outgoings of the farm as such farm bailiff. He paid into his 

 account with the bank, which was sometimes overdrawn, money received 

 on his lordship's account, along with that of himself and others, without 

 any distinguishing mark. The account and the usual pass-book was 

 kept by the company in his name ; and till the bank received Lord De 

 L'Isle's notice, they had no idea that his lordship had any concern with 

 the plaintiff's account with them, or that the })laintiff was his farm baihff. 



On January 11, 1817, his lordship sent him word, through a third 

 party, that lie was from that time not to deal any more with his pro- 

 l)erty, but to confine his services to giving orders to the men and to 

 seeing that they did their work on the fai'm. On the l!)th, however, of 

 the same month he paid in by check to the Tuul;ridge Branch of the 



