112-NLR-NLR-V-14-BULATHSINGHALA-v.-SAMARASINGHE-et-al.pdf
( 398 )
May 20,1911
Present: Lascelles C.J. and Middleton J.BULATHSINGHALA v. SAMARASINGHE et al75—D. C. Ratnapura, 1,750.
Principal and agent—Both liable jointly and severally for acts of agent
within the scope of his authority.
Where second defendant, who was manager of a plumbago *pitbelonging to the first defendant, bought from plaintiff t imber for theopening of the pit,—
Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value fromboth defendants jointly and severally.
Every act done by an agent in the course of his employment onbehalf of the principal and within the apparent scope of his author-ity binds the principal, unless the agent is in fact unauthorized todo the particular act, and the person dealing with him has noticet-hnt in doing such act he is'exceeding his authority.
( 399 )
r|1HE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.
F. de Silva (with him Samarawickreme), for the plaintiff,appellant.
No appearance for the respondent.
May 26, 1911. Lascelles C.J.—
In this case it is admitted that the second defendant was themanager of a plumbago pit belonging to the first defendant. It isproved that the plaintiff sold certain timber to the second defendantat the time when the latter was still the manager of the pit, that is,before the pit was sold. It is admitted and there can hardly beany doubt on the point, that timber such as that sold by the plaintiffis ordinarily used in pits, and that it would be within the authorityof a manager of a pit to buy such timber for the purpose of hisbusiness. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that it mustbe assumed that the second defendant purchased as an agent ofthe first defendant. The rule is clearly expressed in article 80 inBowstead on Agency, which is as follows :—
livery act, done by an agent in the course of his employment onbehalf of the principal and within the apparent scope of his authorityhinds the principal, unless the agent is.in fact unauthorized to do theparticular act, and the person dealing with him has notice that in doingsuch art he is exceeding his authority.
I am therefore of opinion that the appeal should be allowed, andthe judgment varied by ordering the two defendants to pay theamount claimed in the plaint jointly and severally.
Middleton J.—
1 agree. I think the evidence shows that, the second defendantwas the agent of the first, and that he did, within the scope of hisauthority as manager of the plumbago pit, buy timber for thepurpose of opening up the pit. It is also proved that this timberor some timber was supplied to the second defendant during the timethat the first defendant was proprietor of the pit, that is to say, inOctober, 1910. I am of opinion that upon the authority quoted ofBowstead on Agency, and also on the authority of Edmunds v. Bushelland Jones1, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover as against thefirst defendant as well as the second defendant in this action'jointlyand severally. The appeal must be allowed with costs.
Appeal allowed.
May 26,1911
linlalh-einyhala v.Samara-rinyhe.
. 1 te L. J. 20,