If an agent is acting within the scope of his actual or apparent authority, and purports to enter into a contract on behalf of the principal it is fundamental that the contract is that of the principal and all rights and obligations under it belong to him. The agent can neither enforce it, nor is he bound by it.64 In informal contracts it is sometimes a difficult question of fact to determine whether the agent did contract on his own behalf or on behalf of his principal. In any case the question is one of fact. The inquiry must be made, to whom was the third person justified in giving credit? 65 If the name of the v. Wear-U-Well Shoe Co., 191 Mich. 73, 157 N. W. 396; v. Terwilliger v. Ontario, etc., R. Co., 149 N. Y. 86, 94, 43 N. E. 432.

62Raleigh v. Atkinson, 6 M. & W. 670; Hunt v. Rousmaniere, 8 Wheat. 174, 6 L. Ed. 589; Taylor v. Burns, 203 U. S. 120, 51 L. Ed. 116, 27 Sup. Ct. 40; Chambers v. Seay, 73 Ala. 372; Barr v. Schreeder, 32 Cal. 609; Bonney v. Smith, 17 111. 531; Smith v. Dare, 89 Md. 47, 42 Atl. 909; Langdor, v. Lnngdon, 4 Gray, 186; Oatman d. Watrous, 120 N. Y. App. Div. 66, 106 N. Y. S. 174; Wainwright v. Massenburg, 129 N. C. 46,39 S. E. 725; Blackstone v. Buttermore, 53 Pa. 266.

63 Missouri v. Walker, 125 U. S. 339, 31 L. Ed. 769, 8 S. Ct. 929; Chambers v. Seay, 73 Ala. 372; Flanagan v. Brown, 70 Cal. 254, 11 Pac. 706; Gilbert v. Holmes, 64 111. 548, 550; Andrews v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 24 Ky. L, Rep. 844, 70 S. W. 43; Merry v. Lynch,

68 Me. 94; Kolb v. J. E. Bennett Land Co., 74 Miss. 567, 21 So. 233; Elweil v. Coon (N. J.), 46 Atl. 580; Simpson v. Carson, 11 Or. 361, 8 Pac. 325; Hartley's Appeal, 53 Pa. 212, 91 Am. Dec 207.

64 Owen v. Gooch, 2 Esp. 567; Green v. Kopke, 18 C. B. 549; Sampson v. Fox, 109 Ala. 662, 19 So. 896, 55 Am. St. Rep. 950; Seeberger v. McCormick, 178 111. 404, 53 N. E. 340; Thilmany v. Iowa Paper Bag Co., 108 Iowa, 357, 79 N. W. 261, 75 Am. St. Rep. 259; Maury v. Ranger, 38 La. Ann. 485, 58 Am. Rep. 197; Southard p. Sturte-vant, 109 Mass. 390; Goodenough v. Thayer, 132 Mass. 152; Huffman v Newman, 56 Neb. 713, 76 N. W. 409; Sleeper v. Weymouth, 26 N. H. 34; American Nat. Bank v. Wheelock, 82 N. Y. 118.

65 Thomson v. Davenport, 9 B. & C. 78; Calder v. Dobell, L.R.6C. P. 486; Usher v. Waddinghiun, 62 Conn. 412, principal is disclosed, the presumption is strong of an intention to contract on behalf of the principal, and not of the agent.66 An exception to the general rule is made in England in case of a foreign principal. Even though the name of the principal is disclosed in such a case, it is presumed that the credit of the agent was relied upon.67 The English rule has been adopted to some extent in the United States.68 The different States of the Union are not, however, foreign to each other within the meaning of the rule.69

Other authorities treat the question as one of fact whether credit was given to the agent or to the principal, even though the principal is foreign.70 All the rules stated in this section are but rules of presumption. It is possible for the agent to bind himself either as a joint obligor with his principal71 or by a separate several obligation.72 It is also possible that the agent's obligation shall by agreement be the sole obligation, though the name of the principal is disclosed.73

26 Atl. 638; Guest v. Burlington Opera House Co., 74 Iowa, 457, 38 N. W. 158; Simonda v. Heard, 23 Pick. 120, 34 Am. Dec. 41; Kelly v. Thuey, 102 Mo. 622, 16 S. W. 62.

66 Higgins v. Senior, 8 M.&W. 834; Whitney v. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392, 25 L. Ed. 1050; Great Lakes Coal etc. Co. p. Seither Transit Co., 220 Fed. 28, 136 C. C. A. 110; Anderson v. Tim-berlake, 114 Ala. 377, 22 So. 431, 62 Am. St. Rep. 105; Hall v. Crandall, 29 Cal. 567, 89 Am. Dec. 64; Thilmany p. Iowa Paper Bag Co., 108 Ia. 357, 360, 79 N. W. 281, 75 Am. St. Rep. 259; Steamship Bulgarian Co. v. Merchants' Deep. Transp. Co., 135 Mass. 421; Dart p. Ensign, 47 N. Y. 619; Commercial Bank v. Waters, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 441, 60 N. Y. 8. 981; Jones p. Gould, 123 N. Y. App. Div. 236, 108 N. Y. S. 31; Clarke p. Watt, 83 N. Y. Misc. 404,145 N. Y. S. 146; Bailey v. Galbreath, 100 Tenn. 599, 601, 47 S. W. 84; Richmond Union Pass. Ry. Co. p. New York, etc., Ry. Co., 95 Va. 386, 28 S. E. 573. This principle is applicable to contracts made by an attorney-at-law, whose client is disclosed. Covell v. Hart, 14 Hun, 252.

67 Armstrong p. Stokes, L. R. 7 Q. B. 598; Hutton p. Bulloch, L. R. 0 Q. B. 572; Wilson v. De Zulueta, 14 Q. B. 406, 414. Cf. Brandt v. Morris, [1917] 2 K. B. 784.

68Vawter v. Baker, 23 Ind. 63; Mc-Kensie v. Nevins, 22 Me. 138, 38 Am. Dec. 291; Rogers p. March, 33 Me. 106; Hochster p. Baruch, 5 Daly, 440; In re Merrick's Est., 5 W. & S. 9.

69 Vawtero. Baker, 23 Ind. 63; Rogers p. March, 33 Me. 100; Barham p. Bell, 112 N. C. 131,16 S. E. 903.

70 Maury v. Ranger, 38 La. Ann. 489, 58 Am. Rep. 197; Bray v. Kettell, 1 Allen, 80; Kaulback p. Churchill, 59 N. H. 296; Kirkpatrick v. Stainer, 22 Wend. 244; Taintor v. Prendergast, 3 Hill, 72, 38 Am. Dec. 618; Whales v. Saunders, 90 Vt. 393, 98 Atl. 901.

71 Tew p. Wolfsohn, 174 N. Y. 272, 278, 66 N. E. 934.

72 Elbinger Actien-Gesellschaft v. Claye, L. R. 8 Q. B. 313.

73Pateraon v. Gandasequi, 15 East, 62; Addison v. Gandasequi, 4 Taunt.