This section is from the book "American Law Of Real Estate Agency", by William Slee Walker. Also available from Amazon: American law of real estate agency.
Plaintiffs, as brokers, entered into a contract for the purchase from defendant of certain bonds, claiming to act for an undisclosed principal and stipulating that they should in no manner be held liable on the contract which, as they had reason to believe, was made by defendant under a misapprehension as to the value of the bonds; in fact, they were acting for themselves, and there was no other principal. Held, that they could not maintain an action on the contract; not as agents for an undisclosed principal, because no such principal existed, nor as principals, because by their fraudulent misrepresentations they had secured immunity from liability on the contract as such, and estopped themselves from claiming rights which were correlative with such liability. Paine v. Loeb, 96 Fed. 164, 37 C. C. A. 434.
Defendant agreed to furnish to a broker a certain amount of money to be used in the purchase of a mine which was to be conveyed to a corporation to be formed, in which defendant was to have a certain share of the stock, the money advanced to be repaid to him from the profits; the broker purchased the mine, in accordance with the agreement, making a cash payment thereon, which was furnished by defendant, and executed his own notes for the deferred payments, defendant not being known in the transaction with the seller. Held, that the broker and not the defendant was the purchaser, and that defendant could not be held liable on the note as an undisclosed principal. Krohn V. Lambeth, 114 Cal. 302, 46 P. 164. Compare Harper v. Nat. Bank, 54 0. S. 425. See also Sec. 583.
One acting as agent of an undisclosed principal may be treated as the principal by the party with whom he deals. Welch, v. Goodwin, 123 Mass. 71; Pentz v. Stanton, 10 Wend. 271; Bickford v. First Nat. Bh., 42 I11. 238; Baldwin v. Leonard, 39 Vt. 260; Lawler v. Armstrong (Wash. '09), 102 P. 775.
Where the real party in interest is not disclosed to the vendor, the broker should not be allowed to prevail, on the theory that he has produced the agent of an undisclosed principal. Mott v. Minor (Cal. App. '09), 106 P. 244.
 
Continue to: