Sinnatamby V. Johnpulle Et Al.

Present  : Lascelles C.J. and Ennis J.   1914.

SINNATAMBY v. JOHNPULLE et al.

170-D. C. Colombo, 37,092.

Power of attorney-Agent authorised to sign principal's name-Agent signing his name.

The first defendant, by his power of attorney, authorized C, " in the event of any sale, mortgage, lease, exchange, or purchase for me and in my name, and as my act and deed, to sign, execute, 4c, all deeds and other writings necessary for giving effect and validity to the same respectively, or to any contract, agreement, or promise for effecting the same."

Held, that a deed executed by C in his own name, and not by the first defendant by his attorney (C) did not bind the first defendant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo (H. A. Loos, Esq.). The facts are set out in the judgment.

The deed in question ran as follows:-

I, John Saviel Cassie Chetty, the attorney of Emanuel Francis Jusy Johnpulle, duly appointed by Power of Attorney No.____.

(Signed) JOHN SAVIEL CASSIS CHETTY.

Bawa, K.C., for the plaintiff, appellant.-The attorney hag used such words in the agreement as show that he is acting solely as the agent of the first defendant.

The attorney, it is submitted, has executed the agreement in the name of his principal, for there is no difference between " E. F. J. by his attorney J. S. C." and " J. S. C. for E. F. J." Wilke v. Barke.1

Under the English Conveyancing Act of 1881 (44 and 45 Vict,, c. 41, section 46) an attorney can execute a deed in his own name, and that would bind his principal. This would apply, as our law of agency is English law.

The words of the power are " to act for me and in my name or otherwise." The attorney here has acted " otherwise," as he is authorized to do.

The power to execute a deed need not necessarily be in writing, and the attorney's power to act could have been proved by parol evidence. Meera Saibo v. Paulo Silva,2 Grey & Co. v. Arabin.3

Grenier, K.C. (with him Retnam), for defendant, respondent.-The attorney, to make his principal liable, should execute the deed and sign it in the name of the principal. Fontin v. Small,4 Berkly v. Hardy,5 Story on Agency 68.

Foot Notes:

1 2 East. 142.             2 4 N. L. R. 231.
3 Ram. 43-55, 103.      4 1 Strange 705.
                    5 5 B. & C. 355.

An agent making a deed in his own name, the conveyance is void. It will make no difference that in the deed the agent described himself as such. If he says " Know all men by these presents that I, A. B., as agent of C. D., do hereby grant and convey," or if he signs it " A. B, for C. D.," in such a case it is still his own deed, and not the deed of his principal. Story on Agency, 175 and 176.

All such deeds are absolutely void, and not good even by estoppel against the attorney. Story on Agency, 179, note.

The words " or otherwise " cannot have the extended meaning contended for, for where there is a power to do a particular act, followed by general words, the general words are not to extend beyond what is necessary for doing the particular act. Perry v. Hole.1[29 L. J. Ch. 677.]

Powers of attorney should be strictly construed. Attwood v. Manning,2[7 B. & C. 278.] Jacobs v. Morris,3[(1902) 1 Ch. 816.] Uduma Lebbe v. Uduma Lebbe.4[(1912) 16 N. L. R. 29.]

Weinman (with him Tisseverasinghe), for second defendant, respondent.-Section 46 of the Conveyancing Act does not apply to the case, as there is no authority of the donor of the power to the donee to execute the agreement in his own name as required by that section.

The appellant having gone to trial on the written power of attorney cannot be permitted to Ml back on a parol power.

Cur. adv. vult.

June 19, 1914. LASCELLES C.J.-

The plaintiff sues the first defendant on an agreement by which the first defendant is alleged to have undertaken, in consideration of a loan of Rs. 500 from the plaintiff, to lease certain property to the plaintiff, either at the exp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document