4°
except in the
management
o f a fuit,
gratuitous
divorce or
manumiflion,
the reftora-
tion of a dépolit,
or the
difcharge o f
a debt.
A G E TSî C Y . B o o k XXIII.
T he of one of two agents without the. concurrence of the
other is not valid excepting in feme particular cafes as where, for
inftance, a perfon appoints two agents for the management of his fuit, -
in which cafe either of thefe may lawfully aft without the other ; becaufe
their joint action is'impracticable, as it would'only create a noife
and confulion in the affembly of the Kâzsee. Their judgment, moreover,
is required to be exerted previous to the aflembly of the Kck.ee:
in other words, they ought previpufly to confult with each other, and
■ then one of them ought to attend the meeting of the Kâzee to manage
the replies and interrogations ; which may be more effeflually executed
by one than two, lince, in the latter cafe,-much noife and confulion
would, infue.— In the fame manner it is lawful for one of two agents to
aft lingly in cafe of their having been jointly appointed agents by another
to execute a divorce in his behalf without a compenfation * ;—
or to emancipate his Have without a conlideration ;— or to reftore a dépolit'
to the owner of.it ;— or, laftly, to difcharge a debt due by him.
The realbn of this is, that in thefe cafes there is no neceffity for con-
fultation and judgment, lince in all o f them explanation merely is required;
and the Ipeech o(one man, in this refpefl, is equal to that of
itwo.— It were otherwife i f the conftituent had faid to the two agents,
“ divorce a particular wife of mine i f you pleafe," or “ the bulinefs
*1 of fuch a wife is in your hands,”— for in this cafe it would not be
permitted to one of the two agents to divorce the laid wife ; becaufe
the conftituent has committed the divorce to the thought and judgment
of both\ and alfo, becaufe he has fufpended it upon a circum-
ftance relative to both,— namely, their pleafure,— and as he has con-
mefled it with a circumftance relative to both, it becomes analogous to
where a perfon connefts the divorce with the arrival of two perfons at
a particular houfe; in which cafe the execution of it refts on the arrival
of both thefe perfons at the faid houfe ; and fo alfo, in the cafe in
queftion, it depends on the joint wilh of both the agents.
* In oppofition So Khoola, or divorce fo r a compenfation.
8 An
• An agent is not permitted to appoint another perfon an agent to ^ nafte"p.
execute a commiffion to which he himfelf was appointed, as the con-
ftituent, in committing the tranlaftion to him, did not empower him
to appoint an agent for the execution of it.—The reafon of this is that
although the conftituent be fatisfied with the judgment of his own
agent, yet it does not follow that he is fatisfied with the judgment of
another perfon, lince mankind in this refpeft are different.— It is, ofhis™"
therefore, not lawful for an agent to appoint an agent, nnlefs with conftituent; .
, o . i i o ■ / or, unlefs his
the confent of his conftituent; or unlefs the conftituent Ihould have powers be
delired the agent to a£t according to his wifdom and 'judgment,— d,jmucnary.
in the firft of which cafes the confent is exprefs; and in the fecond, the
conftituent commits his bufinefs, in an abfolute manner, to the agent’s
diferetion.—As, in this cafe, however, the agency of the fecondary ,
ao-ent is valid, -he is the agent of the primary conftituent; and hence
the primary agent has‘not the power of difmifling him, nor would his
power of agency ceafe in cafe of the death of the primary agent. The
agencies of both, however, would terminate in the event of the death
ofothe conftituent. A cafe which exemplifies this has been already
let forth in treating of the duties o f the R a z e e .
• I f an agent appoint an agent without the confent of his con- Contraas en-
„ . , , f , . . tered into by ftituent, and the fecondary agent conclude a contract ol lale m a fecon d a ry
the prefence of the primary agent, the contract is in that cafe valid, • pfefenceof6
becaufe it has had the advantage of the wifdom and judgment of the
° . . . . „ are, however, primary agent, which is the very object of the conftituent.—A dif- valid-
agreement, however, fublifts with refpedt to the rights of this contract.—
Some have faid that they appertain to the primary agent, as
the conftituent has not acquiefced in any other’s undertaking the fulfilment
of the contract; whilft others maintain that they relate to the
fecondary agent,. as being the aCtual framer of the,contract. If, on the
other hand, the fecondary agent conclude a contract in the abfence
of the primary agent, it is not valid, .as it has "not the advantage
of the wifdom .and judgment of the primary agent.—If, however,
Vol. III. G the
and they are
alfo valid,