CENSE.
The creation of the agency, when express, may be either by deed, in writing not by deed, or by a verbal delegation of authority ; 2 Kent 612; 9 Ves. 250 ; Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 27, 6 Am. Dec. 150; Ewing v. Tees, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 450, 2 Am. Dec. 455 ; McComb v. Wright, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 667.
An authority may be delegated by deed for any purpose whatever ; for whenever one by parol would be sufficient, one by deed will be equally so, and a power under seal, au thorizing the agent to sign the principal's name, includes authority to affix his seal al so ; Wickham v. Knox, 33 Pa. 71; but it does not authorize the agent to make a deed in his own name ; Bassett v. Hawk, 114 Pa. 502, 8 Atl. 18. When it is to do something which must be performed through the medium of a deed, then the authority must also be by deed, and executed with all the forms neces sary to render the instrument perfect ; Gor don v. Bulkeley, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 331; Har shaw v. McKesson, 65 N. C. 688, 694; Ford l v. Williams, 13 N. Y. 577, 67 Am. Dec. 83; and subsequent parol ratification is not suffi cient to bind the principal, though a written recognition with other acts in paia may do so ; Blood v. Goodrich, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 68, 24 Am. Dee. 121; but it has been held that the agent's authority may be shown by an oral ratification or by acts of the principal from which such ratification may be infer red; Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374, 4 Am. Rep. 490; if the principal be present, and verbally or impliedly authorize the agent to affix his name to the deed he will be bound; Croy v. Busenbark, 72 Ind. 48. But written authority is not required to author ize an agent to sign an unsealed paper, or a contract in writing not under seal, even where a statute makes it necessary that the contract, in order to bind the party, shall be in writing, unless the statute positively re quires that the authority shall also be in writing ; Wagoner v. Watts, 44 N. J. L. 126; Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587, 67 Am. Dec. 89. In Riley v. Minor, 29 Mo. 439, it was held that the authority of an agent to make an executory contract for the sale of land need not be in writing ; and in Watson v. Sherman, 84 Ill. 263, it was held that a pow er of attorney not under seal was sufficient to authorize the agent to sell land, but not to make a conveyance ; for the latter purpose the power must be in writing and of equal dignity with the deed to be executed. In
that case the sale was held good in equity. A contract for the sale of laud, signed and sealed by an agent, was held valid though the agent's authority was not sealed, and ejectment might be supported thereon; Baum v. Dubois, 43 Pa. 260.
An authority is to be so construed as to in clude not only all the necessary and proper means of executing it with effect, but also all the various means which are justified or allowed by the usages of trade ; Denman v. Bloomer, 11 111. 177; or are fairly to be im plied from the transactions between the par ties or papers relating thereto ; Rogers v. Kneeland, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 218.
The rule that an authority must be of the same character as the instrument to be sign ed by the agent was a rigid common law rule, but it was considered so technical that it has been changed in some states by stat ute ; J. B. Streeter, Jr., Co. v. Janu, 90 Minn. 393, 96 N. W. 1128. In other states the courts, without any statute, have shown a disposition to relax the rule, as where it is held that a seal attached unnecessarily by an agent will be treated as surplusage, and the instrument, though not effectual as a deed, may be held good as a contract of sale; Viser v. Rice, 33 Tex. 139 ; Blacknall v. Par ish, 59 N. C. 70, 78 Am. Dec. 239; and this tendency to relax the rule is shown in other cases above cited. In Harshaw v. McKesson, 65 N. C. 688, 694, the court, after some dis cussion of the cases, said, "There is little use in holding on to a rule after it has been reduced to such a shadow." A lease execut ed by an agent without authority in writing, though void, may be admitted in evidence in an action for use and occupation; Jennings v. McComb, 112 Pa. 518, 4 Atl. 812; 'and the same was held of a lease void within the statute of frauds; McIntosh v. Hodges, 110 Mich. 319, 68 N. W. 158, 70 N. W. 550. It may be stated generally that the au thority of an agent may be conferred either in writing, not under seal, or verbally, or by his mere employment, and that if a person knowingly permits another to act for him or clothes him with apparent authority to do so, he will be bound to third persons who in good faith have dealt with the supposed agent and thus there is created what has been termed "an agency by estoppel." 1 Clark & Skyles, Agency 140, sec. 55 ; Bronson v. Chappell, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 681, 20 L. Ed. 436.