48, Which are set out in the Appendix.

84 The law of agency.

CHAPTER V.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT WITH

REGARD TO THIRD PARTIES.

With regard to Contracts. — As a general rule, when an

agent contracts in a representative capacity for a principal,

the principal alone is entitled to sue upon the contract, and

alone is liable to be sued upon it. Thus we find the maxims,

" Qui facit per alium facit per se," and " Respondeat superior."

Montgomerie v. United Kingdom Mutual Steamship

Assoeiation (1891), 1 Q. B. 870 ; here we find it laid down

by Wright, J. ; " There is no doubt whatever as to the

general rule as regards an agent ; that where a person

contracts as agent for a principal, the contract is the

contract of the principal and not tliat of the agent ; and,

prinid facie at common law, the only person who may sue

Is the principal, and the only person who can be sued is

the principal. To that rule, of course, there are many

exceptions."

Ex parte Hartop (180G), 12 Ves. 349; here Lord

Erskine, L.C., said; " No rule of law is better ascertained

or stands u])on a stronger foundation than this: that

where an agent names liis principal, the principal is re-

sponsilile, not the agent. But, for the application of that

rule, thf! agent must name his principal as the person to

bo responsible."

Spitlle V. Lavrnder (1821), 2 B. & B. 452; here, Park,

J., said; "On tlio general rule of law, namely, that where

BIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PBINCIPAL AND AGENT. 85

the principal is known, the agent is not liable, there can

be no doubt ; though it is true that an agent may, under

certain circumstances, render himself liable at all events."

And it seems, as a general rule, that even though an

agent, when making a contract for a principal, does not

name that principal, still, if he clearly states that he is

acting as an agent only, he is not personally liable — vide

Fleet- V. Murton (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 126, and Southwell

V. Boivditch (1876), 1 c. P. D. 374, at pp. 88, 89, post.

With regard to written Contracts entered into by an

Agent. — According to some of the older cases, if an agent

entered into a written contract for a principal, in which

he signed his own name without any qualification in-

dicating agency, the mere fact that he stated in the body

of the contract that he was acting " as agent for," or " on

account of," a named principal, did not prevent him from

being personally liable upon such contract. The principal

would, of course, also be liable, except in the case of

Indentures, Bills, and Notes, with regard to which, vide

p. 98, post.

Paice V. Walker (1870), L. R. 5 Ex. 173; here it was

held that, upon the authority of previous cases, if a person

signed a contract in his own name without qualification,

he would not be exempted from personal liability upon

such contract by merely describing himself in the body of

contract " as agent " for a named principal. In this case

the contract upon which the defendant was held liable ran

as follows: — "Sold A. J. Paice, Esq., London, about two

hundred quarters of wheat, as agents for John Schmidt and

Company, Danzig, etc. — (Signed) Walker and Strange."

It seems, however, that the law as laid down in Paice

V. Walker, uhi supra, was altered by the Court of Appeal

in Gadd v. Houghton (1876), 1 Ex. Div. 357. C. A. In

this case the contract upon which the action was brought

S6 TEE LAW OF AGENCY.

ran as follows : " Mr. George Gadd, we have this day sold to

you on account of James Morand and Company, Valencia,

2000 cases of Valencia oranges, etc. — (Signed) J. C.

Houghton and Company." The Court of Appeal, reversing

the Exchequer Division, held that the defendant was not

personally liable upon this contract. In giving judgment,

James, L.J., said; " The ratio decidendi in Paice v. Walker

(1870), L. K 5 Ex. 173, was that, having regard to the

contract and all the circumstances of the case, the words

"as agents" must be considered as merely describing or