Agency-Selling agent-Authority to receive payment-s-Course of business-
Ratification

Although authority to sell does not necessarily give authority to re-
ceive payment, it is open to the buyer to show that the agent had osterisi-,
ble authority, or that the practice of the trade in question gave him au-
thority. Further where the principal subsequently seeks to obtain payment
from tb6 agent, or lays an information against him of criminal misappropria-
tion,,.the evidence may indicate ratification.

Appeal

l\fay 17, 1931. Owen C.J.: It is true as a general proposition
that an agent authorized to sell cannot be presumed from that fact

• Court: Owen C.J., David-Davis and Gorman JJ.

alone to have authority to receive payment; but in an action of. this '
kind it is open to the buyer, when sued by the seller, to show either
that the agent had actual or ostensible authority, or that he had' a
customary authority by reason of the fact that the payment was. made
to the agent in the ordinary course of business of the. kind in question.

The evidence of the appellant in the court.below is to the effect
that he paid this money to the agent on production by the latter of a
document, described as an invoice, headed by the respondent's firm
name and endorsed, "Being price of goods particulars of which are
shown hereunder bought and received after inspection and accept-
ance-s-paymentin cash," and containing in the body of it a statement
of the price of the 140 sacks .of flour. He-says that he had had
previous transactions with the respondent, ana had made payment
on those occasions on production of similar documents by another
agent or servant of his. ,The evidence also shows that this document
was handed to the agent by the respondent himself. I~ was argued
by the appellant that not only did the production of a document in
this form amount to a demand for payment to bearer, but also that
according to the universal practice of tradesmen it constituted ail
authority by the seller to receive payment from the buyer.

I do not think that this aspect of the appellant's case was in-
vestigated as fully as it might. It is true that there' is no actual
plea to the point, but I am of opinion that the statement by the appel-
lant did in effect raise the . issue of whether this payment by him was
made in accordance with the custom of mer chants in the ordinary
course of business of the kind. It could and /should have been made
the subject of a specific finding under Issue No. 3 of those drafted.

The second point raised by the appellant is that the respondent,
b~"bis conduct subsequent to the payment, has ratified or adopted
.the action of the agent, and by so doing has lost any remedy he might
have had but for such ratification or adoption against the appellant,
What happened in this case was that, immediately after hearing from
the appellant that he had paid the agent, the respondent sought. ~~t .
the agent, who promised to come that afternoon and ,pay him. He did
not do so, but made several other promises to the respondent 'to pay.
The agent's final offer to pay by instalments was refused by the re-
spondent who thereupon went to the Zabtia, and laid an information
against the agent with the object of prosecuting him for criminalmis-
appropriation; This was on August 26, and the statements he made
on that occasion are most significant. On the 28th, he seems to have