c clarke v perrier executor of captain perrier a Scrivener S c Eq can ab a  scrivener let we out money upon bad security the plaintiff deposit pound in  the hand of captain perrier the defendant testator who let the same at  interest upon a mortgage of house in London and take the mortgage in the  plaintiff name which mortgage after prove defective and the plaintiff receive  the interest for several year but it do not appear by the proof in the cause  that the plaintiff do ever assent to this mortgage or that he do give the  defendant a general authority to dispose of it at interest as he think fit  neither do it appear on the other side that the plaintiff do lie any restraint  upon the defendant that he shall not dispose of it without his approbation so  that the case rest mere upon construction of law whether a scrivener  disposingof money deposit general in his hand upon bad security shall be  answerable for it there be no proof of any fraud or collusion in the scrivener  or whether the owner of the money shall stand to the loss of it and my Lord  chancellor say it be like the case of a bailment at commonlaw if I deliver  good to another to keep freeman and he lose they by any accident the loss  shall fall upon he unless he qualify the construction of law by say that he  will keep they as his own and then the loss if it be involuntary fall upon I  the Lord chancellor say it be a case of great consequence and so he will  consider of it before he will deliver any opinion freeman er p afterward it  appear by the proof that the plaintiff have by his agent receive interest for  several year and in the receipt have take notice of the principal be in  mortgage upon the say security this do amount to a approbation of the security  for though every excess of authority be in the first instance at the hazard of  the agent the principal by subsequent approbation which will be infer from his  take the benefit of the transaction discharge the agent and embrace the risk  himself smith v Cologan t r in notorious facts and the act can be avow as to  part and disavow for the rest Wilson v poulter Str and so the Lord chancellor  be of opinion that he ought to sustain the loss and reverse the decree make by  the master of the roll e contra but if it have stand bare upon the  construction of the law without any proof of the consent or approbation of the  party there the scrivener must have sustain the loss accord to the rule of law  in case of bailment compare   Litt a with clog v Bernard Lord raym as Inst and  he cite Exodus chap xxii that the levitical law be so