JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. 1. No serious question is involved in this second appeal. The facts of the case are fully set forth in the judgments of the lower courts and need not be fully recapitulated. The suit is one for recovery of the value of a horse and phaeton, but more properly is a suit for the recovery of the horse and phaeton or their value. The defendant-appellant, Mr. Livesey, shortly before the transaction which is the subject-matter of the litigation, arrived in Cawnpore and is, as his counsel described him, new to the country. He had purchased a pony and a two-wheeled conveyance with which he was not satisfied, and he desired to possess a four wheeled conveyance. A person of the name of Wilson, who we are told, is now serving out a term of imprisonment for the part which he took in the transaction which led up to this litigation, and who appears to earn a precarious livelihood by acting as a go-between in securing purchasers for parties desiring to sell, learnt that the plaintiff, Mr. Campbell, had a horse and phaeton for sale, and that Mr. Livesey desired to purchase a four-wheeled conveyance. Wilson went to Mr. Campbell and told him that he could get him a purchaser. Campbell told him that if he could get him a purchaser for Rs. 600, he would give him Rs. 50. Wilson thereupon went to Livesey and offered him the turnout for Rs. 600. Campbell also sent the horse and conveyance with his coachman for inspection. Livesey made an offer of Rs. 400, and nothing further took place on that day. On the following day Wilson went to Mr. Campbell and told him that he thought that Livesey would purchase the turn-out if a further inspection were given him and induced Mr. Campbell again to sent the horse and conveyance with his coachman for further inspection. 2. Wilson then informed Mr. Livesey that if he gave his own trap and horse in exchange and Rs. 260 in cash, of which Rs. 10 were to go to Wilson, he could have Campbell's phaeton and horse. To this Livesey agreed. 3. Thereupon, at the instance of Wilson, the defendant drew a cheque for Rs. 260 in Wilson's favour and sent his own horse and trap to Campbell in charge of Campbell's coachman and retained Campbell's horse and conveyance. 10 were to go to Wilson, he could have Campbell's phaeton and horse. To this Livesey agreed. 3. Thereupon, at the instance of Wilson, the defendant drew a cheque for Rs. 260 in Wilson's favour and sent his own horse and trap to Campbell in charge of Campbell's coachman and retained Campbell's horse and conveyance. Wilson promptly cashed the cheque and disappeared with the money, and for his fraudulent conduct is we are told, now undergoing a term of imprisonment. 4. The sole question between the parties is upon whom the loss of the Rs. 260 is to fall. Campbell's case is that he never authorized Wilson to do anything more than to find him a purchaser for his horse and conveyance at a price of Rs. 600, and that he did not authorize Wilson to sell, much less to receive the price. 5. The defendant's case, on the other hand, is that Campbell constituted Wilson an agent for the sale, and that, as such agent, Wilson was empowered to receive the price, also that Campbell is responsible for the fraudulent act of his agent. 6. It is obvious from what we have said that. Wilson was not constituted by the plaintiff his agent for sale of the horse and phaeton. The only authority which the plaintiff, conferred upon him was an authority to find a purchaser at a stated price. Even if Wilson had been constituted an agent for the sale, the receipt of the price would not have been within his apparent authority. In a question between a principal and a third party who has dealt bonafide with the agent of the principal, the true limit of the agent's power to bind the principal, is the apparent authority with which the agent is invested. In the absence of express authority a party who is employed to find a purchaser for a horse and trap is not authorized to receive the price, much less to take in exchange another horse and conveyance. It was not within the apparent authority of Wilson. 7. If he had not been new to the country, he would, not so readily have drawn a cheque in favour of a party who, to his knowledge, was merely negotiating a sale for a third party. He must, therefore bear the loss consequent on his foolish act. It was not within the apparent authority of Wilson. 7. If he had not been new to the country, he would, not so readily have drawn a cheque in favour of a party who, to his knowledge, was merely negotiating a sale for a third party. He must, therefore bear the loss consequent on his foolish act. The conclusion at which the learned Judge of the lower appellate court arrived is in our opinion correct, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.