They may be made by an agent, so as t6 bind the principal; Steph. Ev. 17; declara tions of an architect to the contractor in di recting operations are admissible against the owner in an action for price of work and material ; Wright v. Reusens, 133 N. Y. 298, 31 N. E. 215 ; so far only, however, as the agent has authority ; Western Union Tele graph Co. v. Way, 83 Ala. 542, 4 South. 844 ; Barry v. Insurance Co., 62 Mich. 424, 29 N. W. 31; Ruggles v. Insurance Co., 114 N. Y. 415, 21 N. E. 1000, 11 Am. St. Rep. 674 ; and not, it would seem, in regard to past trans' actions; 11 Q. B. 46 ; Haven v. Brown, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 22 Am. Dec. 208; Thall himer v. Brinckerhoff, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 394, 21 Am. Dec. 155; City Bank of Baltimore v. Bateman, 7 Harr. & J. (Md.) 104; Parker v. Green, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 142. Declarations of an agent not in the course of the business of the agency, will not prove agency or ratifi cation ; Ransom v. Duckett, 48 Ill. App. 659. One cannot prove agency by the declarations of an alleged agent only ; Sier v. Bache, 7 Misc. 165, 27 N. Y. Supp. 255; nor will acts and conduct of an alleged agent not ac quiesced in by the principal, establish agen cy ; Martin v. Suber, 39 S. C. 525, 18 S. E. 125.
The admissions of the wife bind the hus band so far only as she has authority in the matter ; 1 Carr. & P. 621; and so the formal admissions of an attorney bind his client ; 7 C. & P. 6 ; but not a necessarily fatal ad mission unintentionally made ; Nesbitt v. Turner, 155 Pa. 429, 26 Atl. 750; nor when not within the scope of his authority ; Lewis v. Duane, 69 Hun 28, 23 N. Y. Supp. 433; and see 2 C. & K. 216; 3 C. B. 608. Declara tions of a husband in the absence of his wife are not admissible to affect the title of his wife to personal property ; Leedom v. Lee dom, 160 Pa. 273, 28 Atl. 1024 ; nor will his admissions affect the wife's separate estate; Clapp v. Eng]edow, 82 Tex. 290, 18 S. W. 146. See EvnANCE.
Implied admissions may result from assum ed character ; 1 B. & Ald. 677 ; from con duct ; 6 C. & P. 241; Tilgham v. Fisher, 9 Watts (Pa.) 441; from acquiescence, which is positive in its nature; Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla. 340 ; from possession of documents in some cases ; 5 C. & P. 75 ; 25 State Tr. 120.
The omission to answer a letter is not ev idence of the truth of statements made in the letter; see 16 Cyc. 960.
In civil matters, constraint will not avoid admissions, if imposition or fraud were not made use of.
Admissions of one in possession of lands, made to others than the owner, are to be considered in determining whether his pos session is adverse to the owner; Lochausen v. Laughter, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 291, 23 S. W. 513.
Judicial admissions ; 2 Campb. 341; Boy den v. Moore, 5 Mass. 365; Jones v. Hoar, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 285; those which have been acted on by others ; Commercial Bank v. King, 3 Rob. (La.) 243 ; Kinney v. Farns worth, 17 Conn. 355 ; 13 Jur. 253 ; and those contained in deeds as between parties and privies ; Crane v. Morris, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 611, 8 L. Ed. 514 ; are conclusive evidence against the party making them.
Declarations and. admissions are admis sible to prove partnership, if made by al leged partners ; Schulberg v. Gutterman, 8 Misc. 502, 28 N. Y. Supp. 763; admission of one that he is in partnership with another, is not binding on the latter; Bank of Osceola v. Outhwaite, 50 Mo. App. 124.
It frequently occurs in practice, that, in order to save expenses as to mere formal proofs, the attorneys on each side consent to admit, reciprocally, certain facts in the cause without requiring proof of them. These are usually reduced to writing. Such admissions are in general conclusive ; 1 Gr. Ev. § 186, 205 ; Holley v. Young, 68 Me. 215, 28 Am. Rep. 40; Woodcock v. City of Calais, 68 Me. 244 ; Marsh v. Mitchell, 26 N. J. Eq. 497 ; Perry v. Mfg. Co., 40 Conn. 313 ; 1 Camp. 139 ; 1 M. & W. 507 ; and may be used in evidence on a new trial ; State v. Bryan, 3 Gill (Md.) 389 ; Merchants' Bank v. Bank, 3 Gill (Md.) 96, 43 Am. Dec. 300 ; Farmers' Bank v. Sprigg, 11 Md. 389; Elwood v. Lan non's Lessee, 27 Md. 209 ; 5 C. & P. 386 ; but may he withdrawn if improvidently made, but only in a clear case of mistake; 1 Gr. Ev. § 206; Marsh v. Mitchel], 26 N. J. Eq. 501; and on timely notice; Hargroves v. Redd, 43 Ga. 150; 5 C. & P. 386 ; and up on leave granted in the exercise of a sound discretion ; Perry v. Mfg. Co., 40 Conn. 313 ; 7 id. 6; but not after the position of the par ties has been changed, as by the death of a party or witness; Wilson v. Bank, 55 Ga. 98.
Admissions against interest in a bill in equity cannot be used as such in another case ; Gresl. Eq. Ev. 323 ; Wigm. Evid. § 1065.
As to admissions during negotiations for a compromise, see COMPROMISE.
In Pleading. The acknowledgment or rec ognition by one party of the truth of some matter alleged by the opposite party.