“That’s nice,” Mason said. “How is he on the law of agency?”
“I have also specialized on that,” Ganten said.
“Then,” Mason observed, “perhaps you have given some thought to the law of agency as it applies to this case.”
“It doesn’t apply to this case at all,” Ganten observed patronizingly. “My clients are acting as brokers. That’s a definite subdivision of the agency relationship. They act as intermediaries…”
“Forget it,” Mason said. “I’m talking about Mattern.”
“About Mattern!” Ganten said in surprise. “What in the world does he have to do with it?”
Mason said with a smile, “You closed the deal with Mattern. You treated Mattern as the agent of Tidings. He was the agent of Tidings. But the very minute Tidings died, that relationship was automatically terminated by law. The authority of an agent — unless it is coupled with an interest — expires immediately upon the death of the principal.”
Loftus said, “Bosh,” again, but a quick glance at Ganten’s face caused him to show sudden signs of concern. “What is it, Ganten?” he asked.
Ganten said, “That’s not going to get you anywhere, Mr. Mason. A complete agreement had been reached between the parties. Mattern was merely the instrumentality by which that agreement was consummated, and Tidings had given Mattern specific, definite instructions prior to his appearance at our office… As you study the law of agency, Mr. Mason, you will find that there are various fine distinctions limiting the application of the general code sections on which you seem to be relying.”
“Well,” Mason said, “you might examine Restatement of the Law. Take for instance pages 309–310 of the volume on Agency and notice the illustrations therein cited as representing judicial applications of the doctrine that death of the principal terminates the authority of the agent. I call your attention particularly to the following: