
    Methuen Company versus Hayes.
    The agency of a witness may be proved by Ms own oath.
    TMs rule applies to the agent of a corporation, as well as to the agent of an individual.
    If an agency be proved, without showing its extent, the presumption is that it is a general agency.
    Assumpsit, tried before Shepley, C. J. The plaintiffs were an incorporated company.
    The authority to institute the suit was in question. One Davis, a witness for the plaintiffs, testified, that he was their agent.
    The Judge instructed the jury, that if Davis was the agent of the plaintiffs and had directed the suit, it could not be defeated for want of authority to commence and to prosecute it.
    
      The defendant excepted.
    Perry, for the defendant.
    1. It is only by a vote, that a corporation can confer authority. Such vote must appear of record in their books. 24 Maine, 171. It was not competent for the agency of Davis to be established by his own oath, or by any other parol testimony. 17 Maine, 440.
    2. If the agency of Davis was sufficiently shown, it does not follow, that he had authority to involve the company in a lawsuit. Of that authority, the presiding Judge should have required record evidence. 17 Mass. 479; 14 Mass. 58.
    
      Andrews, contra.
   Howard, J., orally.

— The agency of Davis was lawfully proved. There was no evidence that it was a limited agency. In the absence of such evidence, the agency is to be considered a general one. Such an agency includes the authority to commence and prosecute suits.

Exceptions overruled.  