v. Stanton, 10 Wendell, 271. Short v. Spackman, 2 Barn. & Adol. 962. Taintor v. Prenderpast, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 72. Raymond v. Crown, &c., 2 Metcalf, 319. French v. Price, 24 Pick. 13.

IV. When neither principal nor agent is liable on the engagement.

Where the agent acts in good faith under an authority which he supposes good, and omits to state nothing which tends to discredit his powers, he is not liable, though his authority may have terminated or have been void. Smout v. Ilberry, 10 Mees. & W. 1. Jefts . York, 10 Cush. 392. In the three cases of the agent's liability mentioned supra, as laid down in Smout v. Ilberry, it seems that the liability of the agent would not be on the contract, but in case. Jenkins v. Hutchinson, 13 Q. B. 744. Lewis v. Nicholson, 12 Eng. L. & Eq. 430. Jefts v. York, 4 Cush. 371. 10 Idem, 392. Abbey v. Chase, 6 Cush. 54. Ogden v. Raymond, 22 Conn. 379. A different rule has obtained, in New York, the reasons and limitations of which are stated in Walker v. Bank of N. Y. 5 Selden, 582. See, also, Woods v. Dennett, 9 N. Hamp. 55. Moor v. Wilson, 6 Foster, 332. So no one, it seems, is liable on the covenants of a deed which are in the name of the principal, but the deed is signed by the agent. Hopkins v. Mehaffy, 11 Serg. & Rawle, 126. Whether there was a remedy in the latter case, in any form of action, was not decided. Wells v. Evans 20 Wendell, 291. Clarke v. Courtney, 5 Peters U. S. 319. Stetson v. Patten, 2 Greenl. 358. Brockway v. Allen, 17 Wendell, 40.

V. Public agents.

They stand on peculiar grounds. Acting for the state, there is, strictly speaking, no liability of the principal, as no action on behalf of the contracting party lies against a state or the United States.

If the agent act by public authority, and within the limits of his power, he does not render himself liable, though he contracts in his own name, and under seal. Unwin v. Wolseley, 1 Term Rep. 674. Hodges v. Dexter, 1 Cranch, 345. Olvey v. Wilkes, 18 Johns. 122. Dawes v. Jackson, 9 Mass. 490. Fox v. Drake, 8 Cowen, 191. Wiggins v. Hathaway,

6 Barb. (N. Y.) 632.

If a public agent exceed his authority, he will be liable. Where a person, under protest, pays illegal duties, he may recover the money paid in an action against the collector. Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Peters U. S. 137. Bend v. Hoyt, 13 Peters U. S. 263. Irving v. Wilson, 4 Tenn. 485. Clinton v. Strong, 9 Johns. 370. But the case of Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. U. S. 236, denies such liability in the collector, under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1839.

If the fact of public agency does not appear at the time of making the contract, Swift v. Hopkins, 13 Johns. 313, Belknap v. Reinhart, 2 Wendell, 375, or if a public agent make an express promise, Gill v. Brown, 12 Johns. 385, or if by his conduct he prevents a remedy against government, Freeman v. Otis, 9 Mass. 272, a personal liability will be incurred.

And in general, public agents themselves, and not government, are responsible for their negligences, wrongs, and omissions of duty. Story on Agency, §§ 319–322, and notes where the authorities are collected and reviewed.

VI. There yet remains a numerous and very difficult class of cases, where questions of fact or construction, as well as questions arising upon the law of agency, are to be decided. Such as, in whose name was the contract made? To whom was the credit given? Or who was intended to be charged?

But such questions are not embraced within the design of the Commentaries; and reference must be had to professed treatises on the law of agency for their solution. Story on Agency, §§ 147–163. Paley on Agency, (by Dunlap,) chap. 3, p. 1, § 3, pp. 180-184. See Moss v. Livingston, 4 Comst. 208.