Frequently one who is in fact an agent enters into a contract without naming his principal. He may either fail entirely to disclose that he is an agent, or he may disclose that he is an agent, but fail to name his principal. These two situations are often referred to indiscriminately as presenting questions of undisclosed principal. But though the law governing the two situations is in the main similar, the difference between them is not unimportant and should be observed. Moreover, where the agent discloses at the time of the bargain that he is an agent, the facts to which appropriate rules of law are to be applied are less troublesome to determine than where no agency is disclosed. In the latter case the agent's state of mind when he enters into the transaction alone determines whether he is acting on his own account or for a principal.82

130; Coffman v. Harrison, 24 Mo. 524; Clark v. Foster, 8 Vt. 98, 102.

77 Hall v. Crandall, 29 Col. 667, 89 Am. Dec. 64; Senter v. Monroe, 77 Cal. 347, 19 Pac. 580; Johnson v. Smith, 21 Conn. 627; Craft Refrig. Much. Co. v. Quinriipiac Brewing Co., 63 Conn. 551, 564, 29 Atl. 76, 25 L. R. A. 856; Duncan v. Niles, 32 111. 532, 83 Am. Dec. 293; Hancock v. Yunker, 83 111. 208; Newman v. Sylvester, 42 Ind. 106; McCurdy v. Rogers, 21 Wis. 197, 91 Am. Dec. 468.

78Coilen v. Wright, 7 E. & B. 301, 8 E. & B. 647; Starkey v. Bank of England, [1903] A. C. 114; O'Rear v. Walker (Ala.), 75 So. 353; Seeberger v.

McConnick, 178 111. 404, 53 N. E. 340; Bartlett v. Tucker, 104 Mass. 336, 6 Am. Rep. 240; Newland Hotel Co. p. Lowe Furniture Co., 73 Mo. App. 135, 138; Sorenaon v. Kribs, 82 Oreg. 130, 161 Pac. 405; Kroeger v. Pitcairn, 101 Pa. 311, 47 Am. Rep. 718; McCurdy v. Rogers, 21 Wis. 197, 91 Am. Dec. 468.

79 See cases in the preceding note.

80Ware v. Morgan, 67 Ala. 461; Newman v. Sylvester, 42 Ind. 106; Michael v. Jones, 84 Mo. 578; Newland Hotel Co. v. Lowe Furniture Co., 73 Mo. App. 135,139; Hall p. Lauderdale, 46 N. Y. 70.

81Dunn p. Parker, 52 N. Y. 494.