LETTING BY AGENT WITHOUT AUTHORITY. 421 



— tliat if terms he redured 1o writing, and a man says Uiai lipviUahidc hj 

 those terms, and ivill sign the agreement, although he does not sign, he is 

 hovndhg that agreement. There arc besides several q.^%q% {Western v. 

 Russell, Thomas v. Dering, and Gihhins v. The Board of the Metropolitan 

 Asylum) in which a single note written ly one party to a solicitor to draw 

 an agreement, independently of the agreement, has been held perfectly 

 valid" {it).). 



In Collcn V. Wright, the defendant signed the following written 

 agreement : 



"Terms for letting a form on Soham Fen, containing, &c. Terra 

 12i years from Lady-day last ; rent £350, to be paid quarterly ; land- 

 lord to pay the tithe rent-charge and drainage taxes ; landlord to 

 put buildings, gates, and posts in repair ; and tenant afterwards to 

 keep them in repair, being allowed rough timber ; tenant to pay for 

 the muck and straw upon the farm by valuation. All the other con- 

 ditions to be the same as in the lease under which J. H. B. now 

 holds the said farm. Landlord to allow tenant £25 of the first half- 

 year's rent. We agree to the above conditions, this 21st day of April, 

 1853. 



" Rohert Wright, agent to AY. D. G., Esq. 

 " John Collenr 



It was further agreed between Collen and Wright that an agreement, 

 stating in detail the terms referred to in the above agreement, should 

 be prepared without delay, and be signed by the parties ; and on 22nd 

 April, 1853, Collen, on the faith of the signature of the said agreement 

 by Wright, as above set forth, took possession of the farm. Both 

 Collen and Wright believed that the latter had authority from Gardner, 

 the owner, to let the farm. On 1st June, 1853, a valuation of the 

 straw and muck was made in accordance with the agreement, and the 

 amount was paid to Gardner's credit at his bankers', and Collen ex- 

 pended a considerable sum on the cultivation and improvement of the 

 farm before the September of that year. About the middle of November 

 he received notice that Gardner refused to sign the lease, on the ground 

 that Wright (against whose executors the action was brought) was not 

 authorised to let the farm for 12^ years, or on the terms set forth in the 

 agreement. Collen then filed a bill against Gardner for specific per- 

 formance, and after he had put in his answer, denying Wright's autho- 

 rity, Collen gave notice to Wright of the suit and ground of defence, 

 and that he would proceed with such suit at his expense unless he gave 

 him notice not further to proceed ; and that he would bring an action 

 against him for damages, in the event either of the bill being dismissed 



