Pender, 34 L. J. Ex. 95; but see Hammond V. Bookwalter, 12 Ind. App. 177, 39 N. E. 872. As to the agent's right to commissions from both parties where he simply intro duces them and they make their own con tract, see Montross v. Eddy, 94 Mich. 100, 53 N. W. 916, 34 Am. St. Rep. 323 ; Green v. Robertson, 64 Cal. 75, 28 Pac. 446.
An agent with orders from two customers for certain stock joined the orders and pur chased the full amount from the plaintiffs ; held that there was no contractual relation with either principal and that they were not liable for the price ; Beckhusen v. Hamblet, 16 T. L. Rep. 278 (Q. B. D.). This case is commented on in 14 Harv. L. Rev. 146, where it is said that if there have been two separate contracts for the precise number of shares ordered by each customer, he would have been liable to the seller on his own con tract whether the broker disclosed his prin cipal or not, and while it seems odd that by lumping the orders the seller loses the right of action against the customers, yet the writer considers the result logical. The de cision in the English case is sustained by Roosevelt v. Doherty, 129 Mass. 301, 37 Am. Rep. 356, which is the converse and where the action was brought by one principal against a third party. • Who may be Principal. Every one of full age, and not otherwise disabled, is capable of being a principal ; for it is a rule that when ever a person has power, as owner, or in his own right, to do a thing, he may do it by an other; Com. Dig. Attorney (C 1) ; Heinec cius, ad Pand. p. 1, 1. 3, tit. 1, § 424; 9 Co. 75 b; Story, Ag. § 6. Infants are gener ally incapable of appointing an agent ; but under special circumstances they may make such appointments. For instance, an infant may authorize another to do any act which is beneficial to him, but not to do an act which is to his prejudice; 2 Kent 233; 9 Co. 75 ; 3 Burr. 1804; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. •S.) 58, 69, 9 L. Ed. 345; Whit ney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 463, 7 Am. Dec. 229. A married woman could not, in general, appoint an agent or attorney ; and when it was requisite that one should be ap pointed, the husband usually appointed for both. She might, perhaps, dispose of or incumber her separate property, through an agent or attorney ; Cro. Car. 165; 2 Bulstr.
13; but this seemed be doubted; Cro. Jac. 617 ; 1 Brownl. 134; Ad. Ej. 174. Idiots, lunatics, and other persons not sut juris are wholly incapable of appointing an agent ; Story, Ag. § 6.
His Liability as Affected by the Character of the Agency. The general principle which governs the liability of a principal is that the responsibility is measured by the char acter and extent of the authority given ; for example, authority to an agent to vote at a corporate meeting upon the stock of his principal does not empower the former to act , for the latter in connection with other stock holders, who were also creditors of the cor poration, In taking measures for cancelling a mortgage of the corporation under which the claims of the principal and those stock holders against the corporation were secur ed ; Moore v. Ensley, 112 Ala. 228, 20 South. 744. The powers of the agent must be measured by the application to each particu lar case of ordinary business principles, and sound judgment to be exercised by the agent in executing his authority, and by the court which is to deal with the case in considering the question of the responsibility of the principal. Where a discretion has been con ferred upon the agent, the principal must abide the result of its exercise and will be held liable to third persons where it has been honestly exercised. So where an agent has power to borrow money on exceptional terms in cases of emergency, a lender is not bound to inquire whether in the par ticular case the emergency has or has not arisen; 15 L. R. App. 357. And where the agent was entrusted with securities and in structed by the principal to raise a certain sum upon them, but borrowed a larger sum and fraudulently appropriated the differ ence, the principal could not redeem the securities without paying the lender in full where he had acted bona fide and in igno rance of the limitation, although he had no knowledge of the agent's authority to bor-. row and made no inquiry, and the 'agent practised fraud and forgery to obtain the loan ; [1895] App. Cas. 173, affirming [1895] 3 Ch. 130.