Intimating the fact that the defendants were agents, and

в– did not amount to a statement that they were making

ВЈb bargain " on account of " another person. Those are

the very words used in the present case. When a man

says he is making a contract " on account of " some one

•else, it seems to me that he uses the very strongest terms

the English lano-uao-e affords to show that he is not binding

himself, but is binding his principal. As to Paice v.

Wcdker, I cannot conceive that the words " as agents " can

be properly understood as implying merely a description.

The word " as " seems to me to exclude that idea. If that

case were now before us, I should hold "as agents" in

that case had the same efi'ect as the words " on account of"

In the present case, and that the decision in that case

ought not to stand. I do not dissent from the principle

that a man does not relieve himself from liability upon

a contract by using words which arc intended to be merely

words of description, but I do not think " as agents " were

words of description."

Quain, J., also said ; " It is said that in order to relieve

the agent from liability, he must sign "as agent" of Morand

and Company. I cannot see the necessity for adding those

words to the signature, if you can gather from the contract

that he makes it on account of Morand and Company.

Those words at the end of the signature would add nothing

to what has Ijccn stated in tlie body of the contract."

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 87

Hahn v. TJie North German Pitwood Company (1892),

8 T. L. R. 557 ; here it was decided that the defendant (an

agent) was not liable upon a contract which he signed " as

agent," even though he signed for a foreign principal. In

this case the contract note upon which defendant was sued

ran as follows : " Sold to M. Hahn, Esq., for Mr. Joachim-

sohn of Dantzic . . . for North German Pitwood Company,

Limited. — (Signed) Emile Schultze, as agent."

Giover v. LoMgford (1892), 8 T. L. R. 628 ; here it was

held that defendant (an agent) was not liable upon the

following contract note : " Bought by Messrs. C. H. Glover

and Com])any of Hatcham, of Messrs. John E. Young and

Company of Riga, through the agency of Mr. J. B. R. Lang-

ford, about one hundred standards of white cords, etc." This

note was sent to plaintiff by defendant enclosed in a letter

signed in defendant's own name without any qualification.

In giving judgment, Charles, J., said ; '* He (defendant) has

signed the letter without any qualification " as agent," and

until recently that would probably have been decisive of

his personal liability. There are many cases which point

in that direction. The true rule is nOw laid down in

Gadd V. Houghton (1876), 1 Ex. Div. 357, in which the

Court of Appeal held that in a contract signed without

qualification, the words " on account of" were suflicient to

show agency. There Paice v. Walker (1870), L, R. 5 Ex.

173, is treated as overruled. It is enough if you can gather

from the document that he signed as agent."

It appears, therefore, to be now settled law, that where

an agent makes a written contract for a principal, the

principal alone will be entitled and liable upon such con-

tract, provided that it is clearly stated upon the face of

the contract (whether in the body or the signature being

immaterial) that the agent is making the contract for, or

on account of, a named principal. Moreover, it does not

seem to be necessary for an agent, when making a written