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.