Case ID: ill-app_187/html/0410-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Graves", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard H. Swartwout et al., for use of G. P. Sayers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Walworth & Neville Manufacturing Company, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 18,747.
    (Not. to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry Olson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 24, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    .Action by Richard H. Swartwout and Paul Appenzellar for the use of Gf. P. Sayers against Walworth & Neville Manufacturing Company, a corporation, to recover two thousand dollars represented by a note claimed to have been given to one Frederick A. Yard, who.was manager of an office for plaintiffs in Chicago, by the defendant, and returned to the defendant by said Yard. To reverse a judgment entered on a directed verdict for defendant, plaintiffs bring error.
    Albert A. Kraft, for plaintiffs in error.
    Gann, Peaks & Townley, for defendant in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Principal and agent, § 179
      
      —essentials to entitle undisclosed principal to sue on contract made by agent. To warrant an action by an undisclosed principal based on a contract made by the agent, it must appear (1) that the contract was made on behalf of the principal; (2) that there is mutuality in the contract between the principal and the one who deals with the agent, so that the contract can be enforced against the principal when he is discovered; and (3) that the principal has the right to perform the contract
    2. Principal and agent, § 179*—when principal cannot maintain action on contracts made by agent. Where an agent of another spends his time serving others or in making contracts of his own disconnected with the line of his employment, the principal may have an action against the agent, but there is no privity between the principal and those with whom the agent deals in independent matters that will warrant an action in the name of the principal based thereon.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.