Though it was not disclosed at the time of the bargain that the agent was acting for any principal, the principal is nevertheless liable,98 if the contract was not under seal or in the form of a negotiable instrument,99 and this is true even though the party dealing with the agent expressly said he would not enter into any bargain with the principal,1 though the agent acted in violation of instructions from his principal (but within the general scope of his authority),2 though the principal has received no benefit under the contract,3 and though a written memorandum of the contract is required by the Statute of Frauds, and the memorandum made is signed by the agent without disclosure of his agency.4 Likewise if the agent purports to be buying for a named principal but is in fact himself the principal he is liable as such.5 Conversely, the principal

96 Cases of this sort in which it was held that no title passed to a bona fide purchaser from the supposed agent are, Hardman v. Booth, 1 H. & C. 803; Kingrford v. Merry, 1 H. & N. 503; Smith Typewriter Co. v. Stidger, 18 Col. App. 261, 71 Pap. 400; Alexander v. Swackhamer, 105 Ind. 81, 4 N. E. 433, 5 N. E. 908, 55 Am. Rep. 180; Edmunds v. Merchants' Transportation Co., 135 Mass. 2S3; Rogers v. Button, 182 Mass. 187,65 N. E. 56; Hamet v. Letcher, 37 Oh. St. 356, 41 Am. Rep. 519; Hentz v. Miller, 94 N. Y. 64. See also Dean v. Yates, 22 Oh. St. 388; Moody v. Blake, 117 Mass. 23, 19 Am. Rep. 394; Barker v. Dinsmore, 72 Pa. St. 427, 13 Am. Rep. 687. Cf.

Hawkins v. Davis, 8 Baxt. 506. But if A sells goods to B, erroneoualy supposing him to be purchasing as agent for C, but without any representation or pretence being made by B, that he was buying as agent for another, the contract, is valid and the title to the goods passes to B. Stoddard v. Ham, 129 Mass. 383, 37 Am. Rep. 369. Cf. Ex parte Barnett, 3 Ch. D. 123. And see Ellsworth v. Randall, 78 Iowa, 141,42 N. W. 629,16 Am. St. Rep. 425; Huffman v. Long, 40 Minn. 473, 42 N. W. 355; Kayton v. Barnett, 116 N. Y. 625, 23 N. E. 24.

97 See also School Sisters v. Kusnitt, 125 Md. 323, 93 Atl. 928.

98Smethurst v. Mitchell, 1 E. & E.

622; Browning v. Provincial Ins. Co., L. R. 5 P. C. App. 263; Darrow v. Borne Co., 57 Fed. 463; Moore a. Sun Printing Co., 101 Fed. 591, 41 C. C. A. SOS, affd., 183 U. 8. 642, 46 L. Ed. 366, 22 S. Ct. 240; Mississippi Valley Const. Co. v. Abeles, 87 Ark. 374, 112 S. W. 894; Dashaway Assoc, v. Rogers, 79 Cal. 211, 21 Pac. 742; Merrill v. Kenyon, 48 Conn. 314, 40 Am. Rep. 174; Baldwin v. Garrett, 111 Ga, 876, 36 S. E. 986; Steele-Smith Grocery Co. v. Potthast, 109 Ia. 413, 80 N. W. 517; Jones v. Adair, 76 Kans. 343, 344, 91 Pac. 78; Ware v. Long, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 696, 69 8. W. 797; Maxcy Mfg. Co. v. Burnham, 89 Me. 538, 36 Atl. 1003; Tobin v. Larkin, 183 Mass. 389, 67 N. E. 340; Greenberg v. Palm-ieri, 71 N. J. L. 83, 68 Ad. 297; City Trust Co. p. American Brewing Co., 174 N. Y. 486, 67 N. E. 62; Hager v. Henneberger, 83 N. Y. Misc. 417, 145 N. Y. S. 152; Thayer v. Luce, 22 Oh. St. 62, 78; Harper v. Tiffin Natl. Bank, 64 Ohio St 426, 44 N. E. 97; Towner v. Lucas' Ex'r, 13 Gratt. 705, 716; Waddill v. Sebree, 88 Va. 1012, 14 8. E. 849; Beit v. Washington Water Power Co., 24 Wash. 387, 64 Pac. 625. See also cases in the following

99As to such formal contracts, see infra, Sec.Sec. 296, 298.

1 Kayton v. Barnett, 116 N. Y. 625,

23 N. E. 24. It should be noticed that in such a case the principal could not enforce the contract. See infra, a. 10.

2 Watteau v. Fenwick, [1893] 1 Q. B. 346; Hubbard v. Tenbrook, 124 Pa. 291, 16 Atl. 817, 2 L. R. A. 823, 10 Am. St. Rep. 586. See the comment on this doctrine by Professor Mechem,

23 Harv. L. Rev. 600. But if a principal supplies money for his agent for the purchase of goods, and the agent retaining the funds buys goods on his own credit, the seller on discovering the principal cannot charge him. Fradley v. Hyland, 37 Fed. 49; Laing v. Butler, 37 Hun, 144. See also Bech-erer v. Asher, 23 Ont. App. 202.

3 Tobin v. Larkin, 183 Mass. 389, 67 N. E. 340; Dykers v. Townsend,

24 N. Y. 57; Waddill v. Sebree, 88 Va. 1012, 14 S. E. 849.

4 Trueman v. Loder, 11 A. & E. 589, 694; Lerned v. Johns, 9 Allen, 419; Phillips p. Cornelius (Miss.), 28 So. 871; Haubelt v. Rea & Page Co., 77 Mo. App. 672; Dykers v. Townsend, 24 N. Y. 67; Thayer v. Luce, 22 Oh. St. 62, 78; Wiener v Whipple, 53 Wis. 298, 10 N. W. 433, 40 Am. Bep. 776. See also Briggs v. Partridge, 64 N. Y. 357, 21 Am. Rep. 617.

5 Railton v. Hodgson, 4 Taunt. 576, n. (a); Isham v. Burgett, 157 Mass. 646, 32 N. E. 907.

can sue on a contract made by his agent without disclosure that he was an agent.5a If the agent was himself a principal with others, all may sue jointly.6 Indeed even though the agent professed to be only an agent, it has been held that he may nevertheless be allowed to prove that he was a principal and recover as such.6a The doctrine that where one person when making a contract apparently is the principal another person may ever be treated (either as plaintiff or defendant) as the real party to the contract in place of the former, and the doctrine that a person who asserts when making a contract that he is acting only as an agent may ever be treated as a principal, are opposed to the fundamental doctrines of mutual assent. The only terms on which the other party to the contract agreed to enter upon it are changed in a fundamental particular. Nevertheless, in view of the decisions, these doctrines must be treated as established.

5aFord v. Williams, 21 How. 287, 16 L. Ed. 36; Darrow v. Horne Co., 57 Fed. 463; Buchanan v. Cleveland Oil Co., 91 Fed. 88; 62 U. S. App. 332, 33 C. C. A. 361; Bell v. Reynolds, 78 Ala. 611, 66 Am. Rep. 52; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hicks, 197 Ala. 81, 72 So. 366; Ruiz v. Norton, 4 Cal. 356, 60 Am. Dec. 618; Eldridge v. Mowry, 24 Cal. App. 183, 140 Pac. 978; Sullivan v. Shailor, 70 Conn. 733, 40 Atl 1054; Woodruff v. McGehee, 30 Ga. 158; Dodd Grocery Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 112 Ga. 685, 37 S. E. 981; Nutt v. Humphreys, 32 Kan, 100, 3 Pac. 787; Cushing v. Rice, 46 Me. 303, 71 Am. Deo. 579; Baltimore Coal Tar Co. v. Fletcher, 61 Md. 288; Foster v. Graham, 166 Mass. 202, 44 N. E. 129; Doucette v, Baldwin, 194 Mass. 131,80 N. E. 444; Bryant v. Wells, 66 N. H. 152; Briggs v. Partridge, 64 N. Y. 357, 362, 21 Am. Rep. 617; Nicoll v. Burke, 78 N. Y. 580; Milliken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 110 N. Y. 403, 410, 18 N. E. 251,1 L. R. A. 281; Brady v. Nally, 151 N. Y. 268, 45 N. E. 547; Navarre Hotel Co. v. American Appraisal Co., 156 N. Y. App. Div. 795, 142 N. Y. S. 89; Ballard v. Freideberg, 177 N. Y.