420 AUTHOIUTY OF AGENT. 



jittorney sealed and signed the lease in his own name, the landlord can- 

 not maintain covenant against the tenant upon the indenture, although 

 the covenants ^Yere expressly stated to have been made by the tenant to 

 and with the landlord {Berkeley v. Hardy). If a man describe himself 

 in the beginning of an agreement to grant a lease, as making it on behalf 

 of another, but in a subsequent part say that he w'ill execute the lease. 

 Best C.J. held that he is personally liable {Norton v. Herron). Anayree- 

 ment for a lease made with an ayent, ivlio acts under a power of attorney, 

 and a lease executed by such agent in pursuance of the agreement, eflTec- 

 tually binds the principal {Hamilton v. Clanricarde{Earl) ; and see Corn- 

 foot V. FowJce, and Wilson v. Fidler.) According to Doe dem. Rhodes v. 

 Bohinson, a notice to quit yiven ly the ayent of an ayent is not sufficient 

 without evidence of an authority to give notice, or of a recognition by 

 liie principal. Doe dem. 3Iann v. Walters is an authority that an ayent 

 to receive rents has no implied authority to yive notice to quit, and where 

 notice to quit is given by an agent, the authority of such agent must be 

 complete a half year before the expiration of the notice, or at least before 

 the day of the demise laid in a declaration in ejectment brought in 

 respect of such notice. 



If contractiny parties ayreeon the terms of a lease, of ivhich there is suffi- 

 cient evidence, but contemplate in addition a more formal document, it be- 

 comes a question of intention merely whether they intend it as a memorial 

 of the terms already agreed on, or as the instrument by which alone they 

 meant to be bound. And where, as in Ridyway v. Wharton, E., the sub- 

 lessee of the property, applied to W., the owner, for a lease to himself, 

 when the original lease expired, and W. referred him to his agent, C, and 

 certain interviews and correspondence between them resulted in the speci- 

 fication of certain terms, which were sent as instructions by C. to W.'s 

 solicitor, to prepare a lease, and both W. (the defendant) and C. denied 

 that the one had given, or the other had received authority to conclude 

 a binding agreement, though some evidence on the part of the plaintiff 

 went to show the tei'ms for the intended lease had been finally settled, 

 so as to constitute an agreement, it was held by Lord C'rantcorih Ch., Lord 

 Brouyham, and Lord Wensleydale, &c., Lord St. Leonards diss, (affirming 

 the decree of the Lord Chancellor in the Court below, though on different 

 grounds), that there was no concluded binding agreement. And see this 

 case (in which Tawny v, Crowthcr was observed on) for general observa- 

 tions on the conduct of contracting parties, and the evidence necessary to 

 enable the Court safely to decree specific performance of an agreement. 

 KnAper Lord St. Leonards : " As to the case of Tawney v. Crowther, it is not 

 at all material whether Lord Thurlow was right in construing the words 

 to amount to an acceptance of the agreement. It is an authurity for this 



