Case Name: NITRO POWDER CO. v. MARX & RAWOLLE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-28
Citations: 133 N.Y.S. 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: NITRO POWDER CO. v. MARX & RAWOLLE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 133
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
NITRO POWDER CO. v. MARX & RAWOLLE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
December 28, 1911.)
Principal and Agent (§ 143 )—Rights op Undisclosed Principal.
A contract involving no confidential relation may be enforced by an undisclosed principal.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 502-512; Dec. Dig. § 143.*]
Kellogg and Betts, JJ., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Trial Term, Ulster County.
Action by the Nitro Powder Company against Marx & Rawolle. Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant.
Affirmed.
See, also, 142 App. Div. 922, 127 N. Y. Supp. 1134.
Argued before .SMITH, P. J„ and KELLOGG, SEWELL, HOUGHTON, and BETTS, JJ.
Emanuel Metzger (Arthur C. Connelly, of counsel), for appellant.
Black, Varían, Bigelow & Somers (Warren Bigelow, of counsel), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It seems clear that the contract between the defendant and the Garrigues Company, if it in fact had been made by the Garrigues Company as agents for the plaintiff, might be enforced by the plaintiff as an undisclosed principal. Its performance involved no confidential relation, such as is necessary to take the contract out of the general rule.
Plaintiff had a right either to purchase these goods through these brokers as his agents, or to make a contract to purchase from these brokers, leaving them with the responsibility of sellers. Plaintiff elected to adopt the latter course, as clearly appears from the contract made, Exhibits C and D. Exhibit A, which is the contract between the brokers and the defendant, while signed by Charles F. Garrigues Company, brokers, is made in behalf of the Charles F. Garrigues Company, and the acceptance is signed by the Charles F. Garrigues Company, not as brokers. Under the contract as made between the plaintiff and Charles F. Garrigues Company, plaintiff could compel performance by the Charles F. Garrigues Company whether or not the defendant defaulted in its contract with the Garrigues Company. If the Garrigues Company were simply the agents of the plaintiff to make this contract, they incurred no such liability. So that the form of the contract made with the Garrigues Company, whether as agents or as independent contractors, made a material difference in the rights of the parties between themselves; and, having elected to deal with the Garrigues Company through an independent contract, there can be no privity between the plaintiff and the defendant, from whom Garrigues Company did in fact make their purchases to fulfill their contract with the plaintiff. The complaint was therefore properly dismissed, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except KELLOGG, J., dissenting in memorandum in which BETTS, J., concurs.