Case ID: iowa_32/html/0096-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bspr, 'J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darling v. Noyes.
    1. Principal and agent: father and child. A contract made by an agent in his own name, which would, as between the agent and the party he contracted with, bind the agent personally, may, nevertheless, be enforced by the principal.
    2.-Under this rule a father may enforce a contract entered into between his minor son and the defendant.
    
      Appeal from Monroe Circuit Cowrt.
    
    Wendnesday, July 26.
    Action to recover $251.25 for the work and labor of a boy and two teams on tbe Central Railroad of Iowa. Tbe petition alleges that tbe contract was made by defendant with plaintiff. Tbe answer sets np that defendant employed plaintiff’s son by a contract with him to do tbe work, to whom be bas made full payment. It is also alleged that plaintiff’s son held himself out as an adult, and that defendant bad good reason to believe, and did believe, him to be such. It is also pleaded that plaintiff acquiesced in tbe acts of bis son, and is accordingly estopped thereby from setting up any claim against defendant. The cause was tried to a jury who returned a general verdict of $102.16 for plaintiff, and, also, a special verdict to tbe effect that tbe contract was made with tbe son; that defendant bad good reason to believe tbe son capable of making tbe contract; that tbe son performed with teams JOf days’ work, and that defendant bas paid thereon $160.77. Judgment was rendered for tbe amount of tbe general verdict. Defendant appeals.
    
      Perry & Townsend for tbe appellant.
    
      Yocum <£> Robb for tbe appellee.
   Bspr, 'J.

Defendant’s counsel insist that the special findings are inconsistent with the general verdict, and do not sustain the allegations of the petition. These allegations are, that the contract was made by plaintiff with defendant. The special verdict is that the son made the contract. There is no conflict in this. The son as the agent of the father, it may be supposed, made the contract. Proof of such fact would sustain the allegations of the petition; and the special finding of the jury is not inconsistent with such an hypothesis. The other special findings in the same view accord with the general verdict, and demand no further notice. There is not the least difficulty in the case when it is remembered that a contract, by one as an agent, made in his own name, which would, as between the agent and the party he contracts with, bind the agent personally, may, nevertheless, be enforced by the principal against the party so contracting with the agent. The special finding of the jury does not negative the existence of a state of facts which, under this rule of the law, would support the general verdict. The amount of the judgment is not in conflict with the special findings.

Affirmed.