6. The Effect of Ratification.

§ 92. In general. — The general effect of ratification

under the conditions named, is as stated in the familiar

maxim Omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur ct vmndat

в– priori aequiparatur, that the act becomes the act of

the principal, with its benefits and burdens, from the

beginning, as though he had previously authorized it

to be done; except, that if the rights of third persons

■ I.. I ■ IN ,1 , I ' ' l—^fc— ■»>■

54 Op authority by ratification. ["в§92-95.

have intervened between the act and its ratiiication,

such rights cannot be cut off by the ratification.

See Cook v. Tullis, L8 Wall. (U. S.) 332, Cas. Ay. 160; Mccracken

V. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 5s1, Cas. Ag. 109.

§93. Itevocability. — Ratification, once intelli-

gently made, is irrevocable, so far as the rights of third

persons arc concerned; but, on the other hand, repudi-

ation unless it lias led some one interested to change

his situation to his detriment may ordinarily be subse-

quently changed to ratification.

See Jones v. Atkinson, 68 Ala. 167, Cas. Ag. 192; Neely v. Jones,

16 W. Va. 625, 37 Am. Rep. 794; Sanders V. Peck, 87 Fed. Rep. 61.

59 U. S. App. 248, 30 C. C. A. 530.

§ 94. Effect as between principal and agent. — As _

between the principal and the agent, the effect of the

ratification is to release the agent from all liability to

the principal for acting without authority; and to give

the agent Uiesa in< ' lights against the principal, — as for

compensation, reimbursement, etc., — which he would

have had if the act had been previously~alithorized.

The principal must ratify the whole act, and his con-

duct, it is held, will be liberally construed in favor of a

ratification.

See Wilson v. Dame, 58 N. H. 392, Cas. Ag. 526; Bank v. Bank,

13 Bush (Ky.), 526, 26 Am. Rep. 211, Cas. Ag. 206; Hazard V. Spears,

4 Keyes (n. Y.), 469, Cas. Ag. 182; Szymanski V. Plassan, 20 La.

Ann. 90, 96 Am. Dec. 382; Risbourg v. Bruckner, 3 Com. B. N. S.

812, 91 Eng. Com. L. 810; Brewer V. Sparrow, 7 b. & c, 310, 14 Eng.

Com. L. 144; Frixione v. Tagliaferro, 10 Moore's Pr. Coun. Cas. 175;

Smith v. Cologan, 2 Term Rep. 188n.

В§ 95. Effect as to rights of third party against

principal. — As between the principal and the party with

whom the agent dealt, the effect of the ratification is to

give the other party the same rights against the princi-

pal which he would have had if the act had been pre-

5В§ 95-97.] OF AUTHORITY BY RATIFICATION. 55

Viously authorized. This is the aspect of the question

most frequently arising, and the rule is declared in the

familiar ma:-:!;n Omiiis ratihubitio retrotrahitur et

rnandato priori aeguiparatur.

See Ileyn v. O'llagen. 60 Mich. 150, Cas. Ag. 186; Hyatt v. Clark,

118 N. Y. 5G3, Cas. Ag. 177.

В§ 96. Effect as to rights of principal against

third party. — The ratification of the act by the princi-

pal being equivalent to prior authority, will operate to

cut off any remedies which he might otherwise have

had against the third party based upon the want of

authority, a.s, for example, the right to recover property

or money received by the other party from the agent.

Whether the principal by ratifying it can acquire the

same right to enforce against the other party a con-

tract made on his behalf which he would have had if it

had been previously authorized, is a question upon

which the cases are in some conflict. The rule sus-

tained by the weight of authority seems to be that the

principal mav ratifv the unauthorized contract and

then enforce it against the other party, if he does so

within a reasonable time and before the other party has

withdrawn from it.

See Dodge v. Hopkins, 14 Wis. 686, Cas. Ag. 215; McClintock v.

Oil Co., 146 Penn. 144, 28 Am. St. Rep. 785, Cas. Ag. 219; Bolton v.

Lambert, L. R. 41 Ch. Div. 295, Cas. Ag. 222; In re Tiedeman [1899],