RATIFICATION OF AGENTS ACT BY EMPLOYER. 467 



snch warranty, and the qnestion is whether my Brother Blacklmrn 

 was right in holding that the damages in the shape of the costs of the 

 ejectment, did not naturally flow from the l)reach of the defendant's 

 warranty. I think that he was right ; the ejectment would have been 

 wrongly defended whether the defendant had authority or not." And 

 semble per Blacklurn J. : " The mere fact of the tenant having laid 

 out money on the premises, with the sanction of the landlord, does 

 not create at law any tenancy other than a tenancy at will " {Poiv v. 

 Davis). 



Agent cannot let on unusual terms witJwut cognisance of otvner. — A 

 farm bailiff or agent who used to let farms upon the ordinary terms, 

 and received the rents, &c., was held by BlacMvrn J., to have no 

 authority in law to let upon unusual terms unknown to the owner ; 

 and the question was left to the jury as one of ftict, whether he had 

 express authority or had been held out by the defendant as having had 

 it {Turner v. Hutchinson). 



Ratification of agent's bargain hy cmiAoyer. — An agent to receive 

 rents and manage property, having without actual authority agreed 

 that his employer should take the stock, &c., of an outgoing tenant at 

 a valuation, and the valuation included eatage of fields, in which the 

 employer's cattle were afterwards placed by his servants, and ivith his 

 Tcnotvledge, such conduct of the employer was held by Bgles J., to be 

 a ratification of the whole valuation {Roclmel v. Eden, Bart.) 



Wrong information to tenant hj receiver as to length of term. — The 

 receiver of an estate in which the plaintiff had an equitable interest 

 under a settlement, vesting it in trustees, let defendant into possession 

 under an agreement with himself in writing in which he described him- 

 self as agreeing on behalf of the estate to let for a term of years, 

 whereas the plaintiff' would only sanction a yearly letting. A corres- 

 pondence ensued bet^veen him and the defendant, in which the latter 

 intimated that as he could not get a lease, he should leave as soon as 

 he could, and he did leave before he had been six months in possession. 

 He was held not liable to the plaintiff" in trespass or use and occupa- 

 tion, and semhle not at all {Sloper v. Saunders). 



Rejyreseniation hy agent that he laid autlioriiy to contract. — In an 

 action against an agent on the implied "warranty, that he had authority 

 to contract with the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, as 

 special damage, the costs of an unsuccessful action against the alleged 

 principal on the contract {Randell\. Trimen, 25 L. J. (N. S.), C. P. 307 j, 

 or of an unsuccessful suit for specific performance, (6(9 Z/e;^ v. Wright), 

 and the liability to pay such costs is, if properly charged in the declara- 

 tion, sufficient to sustain the claim for special damage {Randall v. 



II II 2 



