If the principal takes the benefit of a covenant made in fact on his behalf, but so written that the covenant is not that of the agent because the promise is not expressed to be his, nor that of the principal because the seal is that of the agent, the to such an agreement as a court of equity would give effect to, against creditors of the principal.

76Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers, 150 111. 344, 37 N. E. 937; Johnston v. Crawley, 25 Ga. 316, 71 Am. Dec. 173; Reynolds' Heirs v. Glasgow Academy, 6 Dana, 37; Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417; Wiley v. Board of Education, 11 Minn. 371; Turner v. Kingston, etc., Co., 106 Tenn. 1, 58 S. W. 854. But see Hatch's Lessee v. But, 1 Ohio, * 390; Brown v. Farmers' Supply Co., 23 Ores) S41, 32 Pac. 548; Miller v. Rutland, etc, R. Co., 36 Vt. 452. Even though the principal is a corporation it may thus adopt a seal, not stated to be the corporate seal. Cases supra.

77 Randall v. Van Vechten, 19 Johns. 60, 10 Am. Dec. 193; Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59, 64; Whitford v. Laidler, 94 N. Y. 145, 46 Am. Rep. 131; Hopkins v. Mehaffy, 11 S. & R. 126.

78 Berkeley v. Hardy, 5 B. ft C. 355; Sheldon v. Dunlap, 1 Harrison (N. J.), 245; Buffalo Catholic Institute v. Bitter, 87 N. Y. 250. See also Norris v. Dains, 52 Oh. St. 215, 39 N. E. 660, 49 Am. St. Rep. 716.

79 See infra, Sec. 302.

80 See cases in the preceding section; also Williams v. Uncompahgre Canal Co., 13 Col. 469, 22 Pac. 806.

81 This was so held in regard to instruments expressed to be the covenants of a corporation but signed by the agent in his own name and sealed with his individual seal in Sherman v. fitch, 98 Mass. 59; Blanchard v. Blackstone, 102 Mass. 343. See also Purvance v. Sutherland, 2 Ohio St. 478.

82 See supra, Sec.275.

83 Lancaster v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 153 Fa. 427, 2ft Atl. 251; Stowell v. Eldred, 39 Wis. 614; Kirschbon v. Bonsel, 67 Wis. 178, 29 N. W. 907; See also Love v. Sierra Nevada, etc, Co., 32 Cal. 639, 91 Am. Dec. 602.

84 Briggs v. Partridge, 64 N. Y. 357, 21 Am. Rep. 617; Scharfer v. Henkel, 75 N. Y. 378; Henricus v. Englert, 137 N. Y. 488, 33 N. . 550; Spencer v. Huntington, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 463, 91 N. Y. S. 581; Stanton v. Granger, 125 N. Y. App. Div. 174,109 N. Y. S. 134.

85 Coaling Coal Co. v. Howard, 130 Ga. 807, 811, 61 S. . 987; Kiented v.

have been altogether deprived of their common-law efficacy, it is probable that the principles stated in the preceding section as applicable to informal written contracts would be applied rather than those stated in this section.86