2. If an agent who contracts in his own name for an

undisclosed principal goes so far as to expressly describe

himself as the principal, in a written instrument, he will

alone be entitled and liable upon the contract.

Humble v. Hunter (1848), 12 Q. B. 310; here the son of

a woman, in making a contract concerning a ship of which

she was owner, expressly described himself in the charter-

party as its "owner;" the court held that oral evidence

showing that the son was not really the principal was in-

admissible, and that he alone could sue upon the contract.

In giving judgment, Patterson, J., said; "If the contract

had been made in the son's name merely, without more, it

might have been shown that he was agent only, and that

the plaintiff was the principal. But as the document itself

represents that the son contracted as owner, Lucas v. de la

Cour (1813), 1 M. & S. 249, applies."

96 TEE LAW OF AGENCY.

3. If an agent, who has no authority express or implied

to contract in his own name, does so, he will alone be

entitled and liable upon the contract. Thus, as a general

rule, a broker has no authority implied in law to sell in his

own name, and if he does so, renders himself personally liable

—vide Baring v. Gorrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 143, at p. 29,

ante.

4. An agent may expressly contract in such terms as

to render himself personally entitled and liable upon the

contract, even though he contracts for a named principal.

Parker v. Winloiu (1857), 7 E. & B. 942 ; here Lord

Campbell, C. J., said ; " On principle and on the authorities

cited, an agent is personally liable if he is the contracting

party ; and he may be so though he names his principal."

Fisher v. Marsh (1865), 6 B. & S. 411 ; here Blackburn,

J., said; "The general rule is that when an agent makes a

contract, naming his principal, the contract is made with

the principal and not with the agent. But even where the

principal is known, a contract in writing may be made by

an ao-ent with a third party in such terms that he is per-

sonally bound to the fulfilment of it ; as if he says, " I for

my own self contract " ; in such a case there is a personal

contract by the agent, and he may sue or be sued upon it ;

though the principal may interfere and claim the benefit of it,

as was decided in Higgins v. Senior (1841), 8 M. & W. 834,"

Christoffersen v. Hansen (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 509;

here Blackburn, J., said ; " In a charter-party, as in every

contract, il the agent chooses to make himself a contracting

party, the other contracting party may either sue the agent

who has himself contracted though on behalf of another, or

he may sue the ])rincipal who has contracted through his

af'cnt : and this wlu'ther the ]irincii)al was known at the

time or not, or whether it wasoi" was not known that there

was a principal."

Montgomerie v. United Kingdom Mutual Steamship

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 97

Association (1801), 1 Q. B. 370 ; here Wright, J., said ;

"In all cases the parties can by their express contract

provide that the agent shall be the person liable, either

concurrently with, or to the exclusion of, the principal ; or

that the agent shall be the party to sue, either concurrently

with, or to the exclusion of, the principal."