IdG LIABILITY OF AGENT. 



aiiTccment wns for a mortgng-o of the said farm, and made a foreclosure 

 decree, and directed an account accordingly ; but the Lord Chancellor 

 held, on appeal, that the relation of seller and purchaser was con- 

 stituted by the agreement, and that the plaintiff was entitled to specific 

 perforniaucc {Tapphij v. Shcaiher). 



Costs abiding emit of reference.— \YhcYe an action for alleged breaches 

 of covenant in a farming lease, in which the plaintiff claimed £100 

 damages, was, after pleas but before issue joined, by a Judge's order 

 and by consent, referred to arbitration, " the costs of the reference to 

 abide the event," and the arbitrators found in favour of the defen- 

 dant on all the alleged breaches, with the exception of one, on which 

 they awarded IGs. damages to the plaintiff, it was held by the Court 

 of Exchequer that the event of the reference was in favour of the 

 defendant, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to his costs {Kelceij 

 V. Siiipptcs). 



Liahilit// of agent for nonfulfllment of agreement.— The defendant, 

 hond fide believing he had authority, verbally agreed on behalf of the 

 owners to let the plaintiff a house for seven years ; and the plaintiff 

 was let into possession by the defendant, and began repairing the pre- 

 mises. The owners had not given the defendant authority, and they 

 informed the plaintiff of this, and brought ejectment against him ; the 

 plaintiff consulted the defendant, who persisted that he had authority, 

 and advised the plaintiff to defend the action, and a verdict passed 

 against him. The plaintiff having brought an action against the de- 

 fendant for his breach of warranty of authority, it was held that the 

 plaintiff' could not recover the costs of defending the ejectment, as 

 they were not the consequence of the defendant's breach of warranty, 

 inasmuch as if the defendant had had authority, the plaintiff could not 

 have succeeded in the ejectment by reason of the agreement being 

 verbal only, and consequently creating no more than a tenancy at will. 

 And per CocMurn C.J. : " The plaintiff's remedy, if any, was by 

 going to a Court of Equity, and compelling the landlords to execute 

 the necessary documents to complete his title, and if he had been de- 

 feated in that application in consequence of the defendant's authority 

 being negatived, the defendant might have been justly charged with 

 the costs, as the consequences naturally following from the breach of 

 warranty." And ^;er Cromjjton J. : " This action is brought on the 

 pi-inciple established by Cotlen v. Wright (7 E. & B. 301, and 2G L. J. 

 (N. S.), Q. B. U7, and in Error 8 E. & B. 647, and 27 L. J. (N. S.), 

 (I B. 2 IT)), in this Court and in the Exchequer Chamber, that an agent 

 -^vho holds himself out as authorised to contract for another, warrants 

 his authority and is liable for the damages flowing from the breach of 



