An agent may have authority, instead of signing per pro., to sign the actual name of his principal, or to impress the signature with a rubber stamp. Section 91 enacts : " (I) Where. by this Act, any instrument or writing is required to be signed by any person, it is not necessary that he should sign it with his own hand, but it is sufficient if his signa ture is written thereon by some other person by or under his authority.
" (2) In the case of a corporation, where, by this Act, any instrument or writing is required to be signed, it is sufficient if the instrument or writing be sealed with the corporate seal.
" But nothing in this Section shall be construed as requiring the bill or note of a corporation to be under seal." An infant may act as an agent. An undischarged bankrupt may also act as agent.
It has been held in Cookson v. Bank of England (a case tried at the Guildhall in 1860, and approved by the Court of Com mon Pleas in Ireland in Hare v. Copeland, 1862, 13 J.C.L.R. -126). that, where an agent indorsed a cheque " per procuration Jackson Co., A. Holmes, Agent," and he had no authority to indorse, the bank was protected.
An agent should not place to the credit of his own private account, cheques payable to his principal. Where the business re quires this to be done, there should be a written authority from the principal.
Where cheques are to be signed by an agent, an authority or mandate should be given by the principal requesting the banker to honour such cheques, and if the agent is to have power to sign when the account is overdrawn, the authority should include that power. In the case of a limited com pany, a resolution should be passed by the directors as to the method in which cheques are to be signed, and a copy of the resolution, signed by the chairman, should be furnished to the banker.
On the death of the principal, any autho rity he has given to an agent to sign cheques is cancelled. The death of an agent does not prevent a banker paying a cheque signed by the agent on the account of his principal, and presented for payment after the agent's death.
The following case shows how necessary it is that an agent should, in order to avoid all risk, sign in such a manner that there may be no question that he does so merely as an agent :— In Chapman v. Smethurst (1909, 1 K.B. 73), an action was brought on a promissory note :—" Six months after demand I pro mise to pay to Airs. AI. Chapman the sum of £3U1) lor value received, together with 6 per cent. interest per annum. J. 1I. Stnet burst's Laundry and Dye Works (Limited), J. I1. Smethurst, Managing Director." The words " J. H. Smethurst's Laundry and Dye Works (Limited) " and " Managing Director " were placed on the note by means of a rubber stamp. Mr. Justice Channell held that the defendant was per sonally liable on the promissory note. because he had not added any words to show that he signed merely as the agent of the company. On appeal, however, it was held that the company could be sued on the note.
In Landes v. Marcus & Davids (1909, 25 T.L.R. 478), a cheque was signed by the defendants (directors of ?Marcus LS:: Co., Limited), in favour of the plaintiff, in the following way : " B. Marcus, Director." " S. H. Davids, Director." The space for the secretary's signature was left blank. The name of the company was printed only at the top of the cheque. Although the directors added words to show their repre sentative capacity, it was held that, in signing the cheques, they did not indicate that they did so on behalf of the company, and that they were personally liable on the cheque.
An agent cannot borrow money on behalf of his principal unless authorised to do so ; and if a banker, with knowledge of the extent to which an agent may borrow, permits him to exceed his authority, the principal will not be liable. (See PER