284

SECRETARIAL PRACTICE
was done by him. The act must, therefore, be one which at
that date was both lawful in itself and within the capacity of
the principal. It must also be an act which is done by the
agent on behalf of his principal and not on his own behalf
[Keighley Maxsted & Co v. Durant (1901) A.C. 24].

Powers Where the power, though not expressed to be irrevocable, is

Coupled with coupled with an interest, it cannot be recalled until that

Interest. interest has been satisfied or abandoned. But it must be
clear that the interest—if it is to keep alive a power which
would otherwise be revocable—must be in the subject matter
of the power itself; the power and the interest must be united
in the same person. The power must be given to secure some
claims of the attorney [Frith v. Frith (1906), A.C. 254]; a
power would not be irrevocable under this doctrine merely
because the attorney happened to have some lien upon the
estate in respect of which the power was granted [Taplin v.
Florence (1851), 10 C.B. 744]. For example, a commission
payable to an agent for collecting debts is not such an interest
in the power as to make the appointment of the agent irrevoc-
able [Doward Dickson & Co. v. Williams & Co. (1890), 6
T.L.R. 316]. On the other hand an underwriting letter given
for valuable consideration and authorizing an application for
shares to be made in the name of the signatory, is an authority
coupled with an interest within the meaning of the rule [re
Carmichael (1896), 2 Ch. 643 and re Olympic Reinsurance Co.
(1920), 2 Ch. 341].

Should the authority be but partly exercised when re-
vocation takes place, the position is that the revocation
will be effective as to the part of the authority which has
not been executed, but not as to the part already executed,
if the authority permits such a distinction. Performance can,
therefore, be enforced of a transaction in respect of which the
attorney and the third party have entered into a binding
contract before the death of the principal. But a third party
must not allow an attorney, after notice of the donor’s death,
to continue to carry out transactions of a nature similar to
those already carried out under the power, on the plea that the
transactions after the donor’s death are but part of a con-
tinuous series, constituting in reality the execution of but
one uniform commission. Where, for instance, a stockbroker,
having a continuation account with a client, instead of closing
the account on the death of the client, enters at once on his
own authority into a fresh continuation and ultimately makes
a sale of the securities at a loss, he has been held liable for
the loss incurred [re Overweg, Haas v. Durant (1900), 1 Ch.
209].

Powers
Partly
Exercised.