POWERS OF ATTORNEY

277
that the donee may execute in his own name. The section is
purely permissive, and, as there is still some doubt and no
decision on the question, the attorney should sign all docu-
ments in the name of the principal, lest he may make himself
a party to any covenant.

The form of words is immaterial; it does not make any
difference whether the name of the attorney appears before
or after that of the principal, provided it is made clear that
the attorney is acting solely as the agent of the principal.

When property is to be conveyed under a power of attorney
of which the grantor or grantee is a corporate body, a special
mode of execution is provided for by s. 74 (sub-ss. 3 to 5.
of the Act of 1925, which will be found in Appendix M.

It has been held that ‘the power of attorney is the degd Custody of
of the attorney to whom it was given, and he is to keep it the Power.
and under it to show that he has authority for what he has
done’ [Hibberd v. Knight (1848), 2 Exch. 11, per Baron
Parke]. On revocation, however, the principal should
always demand the return of the power, and if this is refused,
should claim production for the purpose of endorsing a note
of the revocation, or insist on its being filed at the Centra’
Office, and then himself file a deed of revocation.

As regards filing, the Supreme Court of Judicature Filing.
(Consolidation) Act 1925, s. 219, makes the following
provisions:

(1) An instrument creating a power of attorney, the
execution of which has been verified by affidavit,
statutory declaration, or other sufficient evidence,
may, with the affidavit or declaration, if any, be
deposited in the Central Office.

A separate file of instruments so deposited shall be
kept, and any person may search that file and
inspect every instrument so deposited, and an office
copy thereof shall be delivered out to him on request.
A copy of an instrument so deposited may be pre-
sented at the office, and may be stamped or marked
as, and when so stamped or marked shall become,
an office copy.

An office copy of an instrument so deposited shall,
without further proof, be sufficient evidence of
the contents! of the instrument and of the deposit
thereof in the Central Office.
1].e. of the existence of the contents, not of the truth thereof or of the
identity of the parties [O'Kane v. Mullan (1925) Northern Ireland
L.R.I. at p. 5).