The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-01-22

& &s tI$ 81 5gS tEt Il ~ S94f$5gtI3
liquors, except as therein provided,
and the. alleged purchases not having
been made as provided by Law, my
conclusion is that the allaked sales
and shipments in question were illeg.
al and void for the reasons stated.
But it may be stated that, as the H.
quors had been already shipped to the
state dispensary under verbal, tele-
phone, telegraphic or other orders Of
Mr.. Charles, former clerk Of the
board, the state dispensary is now
estopped from returning said liquors
to the shippers. ....,s, 80,
/ have given this point careful con-
sideration, and have reached the con-
clusion that your board is not estop-
ped from returning the liquors, in
question. :
While it may be conceded as true
that the, members of the state board
Of directors are, in certain sense,
officers of the state, still, for the
purpose of purchasing liquors., they
are merely the agents Of the state,
and as have already pointed out
their rights, duties and powers, in
reference to the purchase of liquors,
are clearly and plainly prescribed by
statute. They are, therefore, agents
with limited power and authority.
Their power and authority to pur-
chase liquor is measured entirely by
the statute law under and within
which they must act.
The law is too well settled to need
and extended citation of authorities,
that third parties, who deal with
agents of limited authority, do so at
their own peril. They are bound by
law to take notice of the nature, lin
its, and extent of the authority con-
ferred by the law upon such agents.
This rule is especially applicable to
public agents, public officers or agents
of the state. The principle is very
clearly stated in Mechen on Agency,
in section 2sS-293. In speaking Of the
authority Of special agents, the au-
thor states this principle, in section
288: "The authority of the special
agent being, in its nature, limited, its
scope is much more easy of deter
mination, and must not be exceeded !;
or, rs rule is ordinarily stated, his
authority must be strictly pursued
and if it is not, the principle will
not be bound. 1t is none the less true,
however, rs has been seen, that the
scope of the general agents authority
must not be exceeded. Each acting
within the scope Of the authority con-
ferred, binds his principals; each act
ing beyond that scope binds only him
self. But while these rules that ap-
ply to the two classes are alike in
kind, they differ, as has been shown,
in degree. It is believed, however,
that the difference is one of degree
only, and not Of principle.
Again in section POI it is scaid :
$50 where the nature of the author
ity is such that it must have been con-
ferred by written instrument or must
be a matter of public record, the
party with the agent must, Mt his
peril take notice of this fact and as
certain whether the instrument or
record is sufficient for the purpose.
For similar reasons, if the authority
is known to be open for exercise only
in certain event, or upon the hap
pening Of a certain contingecy, or the
performance Of q certain condition,
the occurrence Of the event, or the
happening of the contingency, or the
performance Of the condition, must
be ascertained by him who would
avail himself of the results ensuing
from the exercise Of the authority"
And in section 202, it is said: FAnd
this rule is particularly true in the
case of public agents. Here the au
thority is matter of public record
or Of public law, or which every per-
son interested is bound to take notice,
and there is no hardship in confirm
ing the scope of such an agents au-
thority within limits of the express
grant and necessary implication. The
fact that the same act might have
been within the scope Of the author
ity if created by private individual
is not conclusive"
Under the law, as thus stated, all
persons making bids for contracts
for the sale Of liquors to the state
dispensafy are bound to take notice
Of the terms of the statute under