Impliedly approved; and if so what are the nature and

effect of such approval?

To the first question, the answer of the law is cer-

tain : .There may be a subseq uent approval of unau -

thorized acts. The law terms that subsequent

approval Ratification. As to the second question,

AVhat is the effect of such an approval or ratification,

and in what cases will it be operative? it is the purpose

of the present chapter to supply the answer.

1. What is Ratification .

§ 75. Ratification defined. — Rati fication is , the

adoption and affirmance by one person of an act which

another, without authority, has assumed to do as his

agent.

See McCracken v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 591, Cas. Ag. 109; Zott-

ruan v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96, 81 Am. Dec. 96.

2. What Art* may he Ifatifirf.

В§ 76. In general, any act which might previously

have been authorized. — As a gen eral, rul e, a P e rson

may ratify the previous unauthorized doing by another

in, his behalf, of any act which he might then and cay

46 OF AUTHORITY BY RATIFICATION. [§§ 76-79.

still lawfully do himself, and which he might then and

can still lawfully delegate to such other to be done.

The act so ratified may be either the making of a

contract, or, within the limits referred to in the follow-

ing section, the commission of a tort.

§ 77. Not void or illegal acts. — Rat ification

can not render valid acts which were void when done,

or acts which were then so far illegal in themselves

that they could not then be lawfully authorized; but

an act which is a trespass, singly because it was not

authorized, may be ratified by the subsequent approval

of the person whose authority was needed; and so a

person may assume liability by the adoption of an act

which another has done in his behalf and as his agent,

and which proves to be a trespass or other tort because,

while it might lawfully be done under some circum-

stances, it w r as not lawfully done in the case in

question .

See Brewer v. Sparrow, 7 Barn. & Cres. 310; Wilson v. Tumman,

6 Man. & Gr. 236; Armitage V. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124.

§ 78. Forgery. — Whether a forgery can be rati-

fied has been much disputed, but the weight of

authority is to the effect that responsibility for the act

may be assumed by ratification, though not so as to

affect the forger's liability for his crime.

See Greenfield Bank v. Crafts, 4 Allen 447, Cas. Ag. 110; Henry

V. Heeb, 114 Ind. 275, 5 Am. St. Rep. 613, Cas. Ag. 115. See also

Montgomery v. Crossthwait, 90 Ala. 553, 8 So. Rep. 498, 12 L. R.

A. 140.

3. Who may Ratify.

В§ 79. In general, any person who might authorize.

— As a general rule any person who was competent to

do an act when it was done and who is still compe-

§§79-82.] OP- AUTHORITY BY RATIFICATION. 47

tent to do it, may ratify its unauthorized doing b\

another as his agent.

$80. State, corporation, etc. — Thus the State,

municipal and private corporations, partnerships, and

partners, may ratify what it or they could and can still

authorize. And of course, e cuitccrsu, neither can do

by ratification what it would be powerless to authorize

directly.

See State v. Torinus, 26 Minn. 1, 37 Am. Rep. 395; Forbes v.

Hagman, 76 Va. 168, Agency Cases, 122; School District v. Insurance

Co., 62 Me. 330, Caa. Ag. 194; Melledge v. Iron Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.)