Page 1

Pole v Leask
(1863) 33 LJ Ch 155, 9 Jur NS 829, [1861-73] All ER Rep 535, 8 LT 645

Court: HL

Judgment Date: 17/04/1863

Catchwords & Digest

AGENCY - NATURE AND FORMATION - THE RELATION OF AGENCY - IN GENERAL

The burden of proof is on the person dealing with anyone as an agent through whom he seeks to charge
another as principal. He must show that the agency existed and that the agent had the authority which he
assumed to exercise, or otherwise that the principal is estopped from disputing it.

P & Co employed L as broker to buy imported goods for them 'under superintendence of A.' L dealt with A
above a year, there being an unbroken series of transactions, and all payments and receipts passing
between A and L and no interference made by P & Co. P & Co opened no account with L in their books and
agreed with A to give him half profits: Held (1) L had a right to infer that A was either a partner of B & Co or
their general agent; (2) if A was agent, L was entitled to notice that A's authority was determined.

No one can become the agent of another person except by the will of that person. His will may be manifested
in writing, or orally, or simply by placing another in a situation in which, according to ordinary rules of law, or
perhaps it would be more correct to say, according to the ordinary usages of mankind, that other is
understood to represent and act for the person who has so placed him; but in every case it is only by the will
of the employer that an agency can be created (Lord Cranworth).

AGENCY - RELATIONS BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND THIRD PERSONS - CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS -

NOTICE TO AGENT - NOTICE TO THIRD PARTY OF REVOCATION OF AGENT'S AUTHORITY -
BROKER AUTHORISED TO BUY UNDER AGENT'S SUPERVISION CONTINUING TO BUY AFTER
AGENCY DETERMINED
L, a broker, was introduced to P & Co by A, and was at the interview directed by P & Co to make purchases
under the superintendence of A. L made large purchases under the sole order and direction of A, sending
him the bought and sold notes and contracts and receiving from him the necessary moneys for payments,
and generally treating him as principal, no direct communication taking place between L and P & Co. Such
course of dealing was admitted by P & Co to have been according to their intentions up to a certain period;
and no notice having been given by them to L of any determination of the authority of A: Held L had a right
from what took place at the interview, and the uniform course of action on A's part, to consider him as the
authorised agent, or a partner of P & Co, until expressly informed of determination of his authority or the
partnership.

PARTNERSHIP - PARTNERSHIP GENERALLY - HOLDING OUT AS PARTNER - IN GENERAL -

WHETHER LIABILITY CREATED
L, a broker, was introduced to P & Co by A, and was at the interview directed by P & Co to make purchase
under the superintendence of A. Thereupon L made large purchases under the sole order and direction of A,
sending him the bought and sold notes and contracts, and receiving from him the necessary moneys for
payments, and generally treating him as principal, no direct communication taking place between L and P &
Co, and such course of dealing was admitted by P & Co to have been according to their intentions up to a
certain period, and no notice was given by them to L of any determination of the authority of A: Held L had a
right from what took place at the interview, and the uniform course of action on the part of A, to consider him
as the authorised agent, or a partner of P & Co, until expressly informed of the determination of his authority
 Page 2

or the partnership.

Case History
Annotations Case Name Citations Court Date CaseSearch
(1863) 33 LJ Ch 155, 9
Jur NS 829, [1861-73] CaseSearch
-- Pole v Leask HL 17/04/1863
All ER Rep 535, 8 LT Entry
645
(1860) 28 Beav 562, 29
LJ Ch 888, 6 Jur NS CaseSearch
Affirming Pole v Leask Rolls Ct 17/07/1860
1105, 54 ER 481, 2 LT Entry
737

Cases referring to this case

Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment Case Name Citations Court Date CaseSearch
Clayton-Greene v De CaseSearch
Considered (1920) 36 TLR 790 KBD circa 1920
Courville Entry

Document information

Court
House of Lords
Judgment date
17/04/1863