1°
neeja and Mohammed, on the other hand, argue that agency for litigation
extends to a reply, which is termed litigation either in its literal
or metaphorical fenfe.— Now an acknowledgment in the affembly of
the Kdzee is metaphorically termed litigation, either becaufe it is op-
pofed to the litigation that has iffued, or becaufe the litigation is the
caufe of the acknowledgment; the acknowledgment, therefore, is
limited to the affembly of the Kdzee.— If, on the other hand, it be
proved, by evidence, that fuch an agent had made an acknowledgment
elfewhere than in the affembly of the Kdzee, his agency determines
: and confequently if he lhould make a claim with refpeft to
the point concerning which he had before made acknowledgment,
and fhould adduce evidence to prove it, his claim would not be admitted,
nor would the objedt of it be yielded to him,, becaufe of the
prevarication of which he has been guilty. T h e agent, in this
inftance, therefore, refembles a father or an executor, who makes
an acknowledgment prejudicial to the infaht under his charge in the
affembly of the Kdzee, which is of no effect; whence if they fhould afterwards
prefer a claim to the objeót of it, and adduce evidence to
prove their right, it would not be admitted, nor would the article in
difpute be given to them.
Agency for I f a perfon be furety for property in behalf o f a debtor, and the
the receijrtof crecfttor appoint the faid furety his agent for the receipt of the debt,
mined to the fuch agency is abfolutely invalid, for two reafons.— F i r s t , the
debt, inn-5 bufinefe of an agent is to. a& in behalf o f another; and if the agency
valid. Gf the furety were fuppofed to be valid, it would neceffarily follow
that he adts as agent in behalf of his own perfon, in order to exempt
himfelf from refponfibility; and thus one of the effentials of agency
(namely, aElian in behalf o f another) would be deftroyed.— S e c o n d l y ,
if the agency be valid, it neceffarily follows that in cafe the agent were-
to fay “ he had received the debt,” ' his affertion is credited,, (fince
an agent is a truftee*:) and this conclufion muff be rejedted in the:
* Arab. Ameen \— meaning a confident; one whole word muft be relied upon.
prefent inftance, as the agent’s affertion cannot be credited, fince in
it he endeavours to exempt himfelf from refponfibility. The agency,
therefore, is invalid, becaufe of the inadmiffibility of the conclufion
arifing from it.— It is to be obferved that the agent, in this inftance,
refembles the owner of a Mazoon, or privileged Have, involved in
debt.— In other words, if the mafter of an infolvent Mazoon were to
emancipate him, fo as to be himfelf refponfible for his value to the
creditors *, and the creditors demand payment of the whole of the
debts from the {lave, appointing the mafter agent for the receipt of
them, the agency would be invalid , becaufe of the two reafons above
recited, in treating of the agency of a furety.
I f a perfon plead his being agent for the receipt of a debt due to cafeofap le s.
another perfon who is abfent, and the debtor verify his after- „jgfi ,he
tion, in this cafe he [the debtor] muft be directed to deliver the debt
to the agent; becaufe his verification of the claim is an acknowledg- fence of the
ment againft himfelf, fince what the agent receives is purely the property
of the debtor.— If, therefore, the abfent perfon afterwards appear,
and verify' the affertion o f the agent, there will be no contention
whatever: but if otherwife, the debtor muft again pay the debt
to the abfentee, (who is now prefent,) becaufe his former payment
o f it is not eftablifhed, as the creditor denies the agency; and his denial
of agency, if confirmed by an oath, muft be admitted.— T h e
former payment through t'he agent is therefore invalid; and the
debtor is confequently entitled to retake from him whatever he had
paid to him, provided it be ftill extant in his pofleffion; becaufe his
objedl, in making the payment, was to free himfelf from refponfibility;
and as this objedt has not been fulfilled, he has therefore a right to retake
it.-— If, however, the thing be not extant in the pofleffion of the
agent, but have been deftroyed, in that cafe the debtor is not entitled
to retake any thing from the agent, fince he, by his verification, ac-
Se t -ManumjJion, V o l. I . Book V .
H a c knowledged