Judgment of the Court
(Oral).-We do not think that we should withhold ourjudgment in this case. It is to be regretted that an appeal was taken to this court considering the amount involved, the nature of the questions raised and the unanimity of opinions in the courts below, especially in the Court of Appeal. I have no hesitation in saying that I am quite prepared to adopt the principle of law laid down by Mr. Justice. Justice Lindley namely, that where false representations have been made by an agent in executing his mandate, though the principal has not directly authorized such representations, yet the rule of respondeat superior applies as in other cases, and it is not essential that the principal should have ratified or derived benefit from the act of his agent.
I am not sure that all my learned brothers will concur in this, but I am sure they will agree as to what Mr. Justice Moss finds to be the effect of the evidence, namely, that it is patent from the depositions that the principals, if they did not expressly authorise the statement made by their agents, did receive benefit from it in getting the money sought to be recovered by this action. I cannot do better than read an extract from the judgment of Mr. Justice Moss, who says: For myself I go further than this and say that neither express authority to make the representations nor subsequent ratification or participation in benefits were necessary ingredients to make the appellants liable, though I agree with Mr. Justice Moss in his