"* * * there was nothing in the nature of the salesman's occupation which conferred upon him the authority to sign for both the seller and the buyer, as in the case of an auctioneer or a broker, who become indifferent middlemen when the sale is made. Moore v. Taylor, 81 Md. 644, 677; Williams v. Woods, 16 Md. 220; Ijams v. Hoffman, 1 Md. 423, 436; Austin, Nichols Co. v. Lingo, 136 Md. 183, 190." Id. at 352-53.
Browne, Statute of Frauds, secs. 364, 365, 369; Batturs v. Sellers, 5 H. J. 117, 6 H. J. 249; Stoddert v. Vestry, 2 G. J. 227, 230; Drury Co. v. Young, 58 Md. 546, 550, 555; Kahn v. Carl Schoen Silk Corp., 147 Md. 516, 526; Williston on Sales (2nd ed.), sec. 114; Williston on Contracts, sec. 587. A traveling salesman is presumably not authorized by one who buys of him to sign a contract for the customer as purchaser. Imperial Cap Co. v. Cohen, 11 Ont. L. 382. And there was nothing in the nature of the salesman's occupation which conferred upon him the authority to sign for both the seller and the buyer, as in the case of an auctioneer or a broker, who become indifferent middlemen when the sale is made. Moore v. Taylor, 81 Md. 644, 647; Williams v. Woods, 16 Md. 220; Ijams v. Hoffman, 1 Md. 423, 436; Austin, Nichols Co. v. Lingo, 136 Md. 183, 190. Hence the salesman's authority to sign for the buyer must be established by direct testimony, or by necessary implication from the circumstances, to have been actually conferred upon him by the buyer. This delegation of authority by the buyer to the agent of the seller should be shown by clear proof of the full knowledge and consent of the buyer.