Beymer v. Bonsall

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, October 28th 1875,

Pee Cueiam.

Undoubtedly an agent who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing his agency is liable to the other party. The latter acts upon his credit and is not bound to yield up his right to hold the former personally, merely because he discloses a principal who is also liable. The principal is liable because the contract was for his benefit, and the agent is benefited by his being presumedly the creditor, for there can be but one satisfaction. But it does not follow that the agent can afterwards discharge himself by putting the creditor to his election. Being already liable by his contract, he can be discharged only by satisfaction of it, by himself or another. So the principal has no right to compel the creditor to elect his action, or to discharge either himself or his agent, but can defend his agent only by making satisfaction for him. We think no error was committed by the court below, except in the form of the reservation. Judgment should have been given directly on the demurrer itself and not by way of a reserved point upon it. This, however, is not a substantial error and the judgment may be treated as entered upon the demurrer. • Judgment affirmed.