Is, becomes material in determining the extent of their

powers and liabilities as joint principals.

Where a number of co-tenants execute several and separate pow-

ers of attorney to the same agent to dispose of the several interest

of each, the agent will have no authority to bind them all jointly.

Harris v. Johnston (1893), 54 Minn. 177, 55 N. W. Rep. 970, 40 Am.

St. Rep. 312. So where two principals unite in giving a joint power

to bind both jointly, there will be no authority to bind one only,

Gilbert v. How (1890), 45 Minn. 121, 47 N. W. Rep. 643, 22 Am. St.

Rep. 724, Cas. Ag. 380.

§ 53. Partners, co-tenants, etc., as principals. —

In the case of a partnership, each partner has usually

the power to appoint an agent whose acts, in reference

to the partnership affairs, will bind all of the part-

ners. But in the case of joint tenants, tenants in com-

mon, and other similar relations, one party is not, from

the mere fact of the relation, impliedly authorized to

act for all, and an agent appointed by one will bind

that one only and not all, unless all authorized his

appointment.

See Mussey v. Holt, 24 N. H. 248, 55 Am. Dec. 234; Tuttle v. Camp-

bell, 74 Mich. 652, 16 Am. St. Rep. 652; Morrison v. Clark, 89 Me.

103, 56 Am. St. Rep. 395.

55 54-55.1 WHO MAY BE PRINCIPAL OR AGENT. 'в– >>'в– >>

§51. Clubs, societies, etc., a3 principals. — Clubs,

societies, and unincorporated associations are not part-

nerships, and no power in one member to bind the

others will be implied from the mere fact of member-

ship. A person, therefore, who assumes to act as agent

of such a body can bind those only who have in so

way, previously authorized his appointment, expressly

or impliedly, or have subsequently ratified it

As in other cases, no particular method of conferring

the authority is necessary, unless made so by some i

press rule of the association. Such an appointment

may be authorized by the rules or regulations of the

association to which the member assents on joining, or

it may be made by those who vote for it at a meeting,

or it may be ratified by the members who subse-

quently take the benefit of the acts with knowledge of

the facts.

See Ash v. Guie, 97 Penn. St. 493, 39 Am. Rep. 818, Cas. Ag. 45;

Davison v. Holden, 55 Conn. 103, 3 Am. St. Rep. 40, Cas. Ag. 47;

Lewis v. Tilton, 64 Iowa, 220, 52 Am. Rep. 436, Cas. Ag. 510; Bennet

v. Lathrop, 71 Conn. 613, 42 Atl. 634, 71 Am. St. Rep. 222.

Of course, to bind any one as principal in these cases, it must

appear that dealings upon credit were contemplated, for if it be

evident that the authority went no further than to pledge funds pro-

vided and supposed to be sufficient, no personal liability would

attach. McCabe v. Goodfellow (1892), 133 N. Y. 89, 30 N. E. Rep.

728, 17 L. R. A. 204.

i**""* 4. Joint Agents.

В§ 55. Several agents may jointly represent the

same principal. — There may also be a number of

agents jointly representing the same principal. Where

they are appointed by a private principal, the law pre-

sumes that the principal relied upon their joint judg-

ment and discretion, and they must therefore all act

together in the execution of their authority, and a less

number than the whole can not execute it, unless there