Story Case

Marie Brown, a woman sixty years old, made a contract with Howard Harvey, authorizing him to dispose of certain real property for her. Later the heirs of the woman contested the authority given to Harvey and therefore the conveyance made by him, on the ground that the principal, Mrs. Brown, had not the capacity to contract or make a conveyance of the property herself. It was shown that she had been deaf and dumb since she was fifty years old, and that she could convey no ideas to others or receive any except a few simple ones in doing very simple housework. Assuming that she had not the capacity to manage her own business, of what effect is the authority given to Harvey?

Ruling Court Case. United States Vs. Grossmayer, Volume 9 Of Wallace's United States Supreme Court Reports, Page 72

When the war of 1861 broke out, Eiustein, a resident of Macon, Georgia, was indebted for goods sold to Grossmayer, a resident of New York. While the war was in progress, they continued correspondence in regard to it, through a go-between.

They finally agreed that Einstein was to invest the money in cotton and hold it for Grossmayer until the close of the war. Einstein bought the cotton, and shipped it as Grossmayer's to Savannah for storage. The Union army entered that city and the cotton was taken as booty.

This is a claim filed by Grossmayer against the United States, alleging that he comes within the protection of the Captured and Abandoned Property Act.

The Court conceded that a creditor may have an agent in an enemy's country to whom his debtor there may pay a debt contracted before the war. But in this case the appointment was made after hostilities began. So the appointment was void. The capacity to make a contract did not exist between Einstein and Grossmayer, and therefore the latter did not have the power to create an agency. Grossmayer cannot recover.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It is sometimes stated as a general rule, that a person may do through an agent anything which he himself might do. This general rule is subject, however, to several important limitations. There are some things which a person is not permitted to delegate to another. A person cannot vote at a public election by an agent, nor can he take an oath by an agent, or make a will. Where he acts in a fiduciary relation or capacity, as a trustee, he cannot act by an agent. Ministerial acts, or acts sanctioned by custom or commercial usages may be turned over to be done by an agent. When a person is engaged to perform personal services, which require his personal skill, he cannot delegate the doing of this to an agent.

It has already been seen that the relationship of agency contemplates the principal turning over something to be done by one called an agent. The theory of the relation is, however, that the principal himself does them. From this it naturally follows that one, who has not the legal capacity to do a thing himself, cannot appoint some one else to do it for him. A blind person may not have the physical capacity to make a written contract, but he may nevertheless have the legal capacity to do it through an agent. Citizens in countries at war cannot contract with each other, and therefore, one cannot be the principal of the other. An insane person has not the legal capacity to contract personally. Consequently, he cannot empower an agent to contract for him. In conclusion, it can be stated as a general rule that a person can act through an agent to the same extent that he might have done the same things himself. This is subject to the limitations above noted.

In the Story Case, the authority given to Harvey would have no effect whatsoever. Mrs. Brown could not act for herself, and therefore could not appoint an agent to act for her. In matters where a person is incapacitated from acting himself, he cannot appoint an agent to act for him.