This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
If the real principal, X, wishes to sue upon the contract, the parol evidence rule does not prevent him from showing that A was his agent and that X is the real party adversary to B.1 Such evidence is admissible to enable the principal to sue in his own name.2 If he sues in his own name, the principal is, however, subject to defenses which might have been made against the agent,3 such as set-off.4
15Simson v. Klipstein, 88 N. J. E; 220, 102 Atl. 242.
16 Albany Furniture Co. v. Bank, 17 Ind. App. 531, HO Am. St. Rep. 178, 47 N. E. 227.
But extrinsic evidence was admitted under a similar form of signature in Holt v. Sweetzer. 23 Ind. App. 237. 55 N. E. 254.
17 W. C. Dean Jewelry Co. v. Storm, - Okla. - , 166 Pac 1046.
18Keeley Brewing Co. v. Decorating Co., 104 111. 580, 62 N. E. 023.
1 United States. New Jersey, etc., Co. v. Bank, 47 V. S. (6 now.) 344, 12 L. ed. 465.
Arkansas. Frazier v. Poindexter, 78 Ark. 241, 113 Am. St. Rep. 33, 04 S W. 464.
Illinois. Conklin v. Leeds, 58 111. 178.
Iowa. Harrington v. Foley, 108 Ia. 287, 70 N. W. 64.
Massachusetts. Taunton, etc.. Turnpike v. Whiting. 10 Mass. 328.
New Hampshire. Elkins v. Ry., 19 N. H. 337, 51 Am. Dec. 184.
New York. Beebe v. Robert, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 413, 27 Am. Dec. 132.
Oklahoma. Rankin v. Blaine County Bank, 20 Okla. 68, 18 L. R. A. (X.S.) 512, 03 Pac. 536.
Pennsylvania. Elkinton v. Newman, 20 Pa. St. 281.
Washington. Belt v. Water Power Co., 24 Wash. 387, 64 Pac. 525.
West Virginia. Coulter v. Blatchley. 51 W. Va. 163, 41 S. E. 133.
2 Simsos v. Klipstein, 88 N. J. Eq. 220, 102 Atl. 242; Rankin v. Blaine County Bank, 20 Okla. 68, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 512, 03 Pac. 536; Mercer v. Ger-mania Fire Insurance Co., 88 Or. 410, 171 Pac. 412.
The fact that the contract is one of those required by law to be proved in writing does not prevent the principal from showing that he is the real party in interest and enforcing the contract in his own right.5 A different principle applies if the contract is one of those which by law must be in writing.6 Questions involving the right of the adversary party to go outside the writing and hold the real principal thereon have been discussed elsewhere.7 The name of an individual signed to a contract may be shown to be the name of a partnership,8 but a contract signed by the names of two individuals can not be shown to be the contract of a partnership composed of those individuals and others.9
The right of the principal to sue in his own name upon a contract is said not to extend to his right to maintain an action in tort upon such transaction,10 as for deceit practiced upon his agent.11