BENJAMIN FORD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN S. AND HERMAN WILLIAMS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Benjamin Ford sought to recover on a written contract made by his agent in the agent's own name without disclosing Ford as the principal. The Supreme Court held that a principal may maintain an action on a contract made by his agent in the agent's own name, and that parol evidence proving the agency relationship does not contradict the written contract but merely explains the transaction. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment and established that an undisclosed principal may sue on such contracts despite the agent's failure to name him in the writing.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
The single question presented for our decision in this ease is, whether the principal can maintain an action on a written contract made by his agent in his own name, without disclosing the name of the principal.
It is not necessary to the validity of a contract, under the statute of frauds, that the writing disclose the principal. In the brief memoranda of these contracts usually made by brokers and factors, it is seldom done. If a party is informed that the person with whom he is dealing is merely the agent for another, and prefers to deal with the agent personally on his own credit, he will not be allowed afterwards to charge the principal; but when he deals with the agent, without any disclosure of the fact of his agency, he may elect to treat the after-discovered principal as the person with whom he contracted.
The contract of the agent is the contract of the principal, and he may sue or be sued thereon, though not named thereiu; and notwithstanding the rule of law that an agreement reduced to writing may not be contradicted or varied by parol, it is well settled that the principal may show that the agent who made the contract in his own name was acting for him. This proof does not contradict the.writing; it only explains the transaction. But the agent, who binds himself, will not be allowed to contradict the writing by proving that he was contracting only as agent, while the same evidence will be admitted. to charge . the principal. “ Such evidence (says Baron Parke) does not deny that the contract binds those whom on its face it purports to bind; but shows that it also binds another, by reason that the act of the agent is the act of the principal.” (See Higgins v. Senior, 9 Meeson and Wilsby, 843.) .
The array of cases and treatises cited by the plaintiff’s eoun sel shows conclusively that this question is settled, not only by the'courts of England and many of the States, but by this court. (See New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants’ Bank, 6 How., 381, et cas. ib. cit.)
The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, and a a venire de novo awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Humphrey v. Bussey, 99 Fla. 1249 (Fla. 1930)…o. W. R. 249; Greenburg v. Palmieri, 71 N. J. L. 83, 58 Atl. R. 297; Waddell v. Sebree, 88 Va. 1012, 14 So. E. R. 849; Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. Washington Portland Cement Co., 63 Wash. 689, 116 Pac. R. 284; Ford v. Williams, 21 How. (U. S.) 287, 16 L. Ed. 36; 2 Mechem on Agency, p. 1314; Kayton v. Barnett, 116 N. Y. 625, 23 N. E. R. 24. We are not concerned to any great extent with the reason upon which the rule rests, whether upon the theory of an equitable subrogation to the agent’s rights against th…
-
Hitchcock v. Galveston, 96 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1877)
-
Dietrich v. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp., 9 F.2d 733 (2d Cir. 1925)…s executory. The rule itself is doubtless an anomaly,'but even so it is undoubtedly as well settled as any other rule in the ,law of agency.” And there is no question that the rule as above stated is the law of the federal courts. Ford v. Williams, 21 How. 287, 16 L. Ed. 36; Berry v. Chase, 179 F. 426, 102 C. C. A. 572; Prichard v. Budd, 76 F. 710, 22 C. C. A. 504; Pope v. Meadow Spring Distilling Co. (C. C.) 20 F. 35. In Vital v. Kerr (C. C. A.) 297 F. 959, 969, we had occasion to say that: “It is quite…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence