fess to act in the capacity of agent for the alleged debtor but, on the contrary, made the payment avowedly on his own behalf, whether intending it to be taken in satisfacclaim against the debtor or, as seems more probable, to be held as a deposit, or guarantee, for the eventual settlement claim by the debtor himself. It is urged that this payment was subsequently ratified by the debtor and, therefore, is as binding upon him and the respondent as if made by his authority. The alleged act of ratification, however, is quite consistent with the debtor's position denying the existence of the debt and with the payment itself having been made not on his behalf but by the third party for his own account. Moreover, it is trite law that liability by virtue of ratification can arise only when in doing the act to be ratified the agent purported to act as such and on behalf of the principal. Upon these grounds we think it quite clear that neither under article 1141 C.C., nor by virtue of the alleged agency of the third party for the debtor, is any liability established.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Solicitor for the appellants: Louis Morin.
Solicitors for the respondent: Bouffard & Bouffard. SIMARD v. ROY
APPEAL by the plaintiff appellant from the decision of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec (1), varying the judgment of the Superior Court, Tessier J., and maintaining the appellant's action for $574.69. The appellant took an action in damages for breach of contract and claimed from the respondent the sum of $37,557.40.
He alleged that the respondent had sold him