Case Name: Hartshorne v. Whittles
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1812-12-10
Citations: 3 Munf. 357
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hartshorne v. Whittles.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
Hartshorne v. Whittles.
Thursday, Dec. 10th, 1812.
Covenant — By Parties Named in Instrument as Agents. —If persons contracting by a charter-party, under seal, .bind themselves each to the other, as on their own behalf, each may maintain an action for covenant broken, against the other in his individual capacity; notwithstanding they were described, in the introductory part of the instrument. and in their signatures, as agents for other persons.
An action for covenant broken, was instituted in the borough Court of Norfolk, by William Hartshorne, jun. against Conway & Rortesque Whittles, upon a charter party of affreightment. The declaration set forth the instrument in question, as executed, by the defendants, to the plaintiff, without mentioning that either party acted as agents for other persons. Oyer being prayed of the charter-party, it appeared to have been signed and sealed by “Conway & E\ Whittle, agents for John Bell,” and by “William Hartshorne, jun. for the owners of brig Two Brothers;” the introductory part being worded in like manner; but all the covenants, by both parties, were expressed as on their own behalf; and for their due performance, they bound themselves, each to the other, in the penal sum of five thousand dollars.” The covenants by C. & E\ Whittles, were, “for themselves, their factors, and assigns. ” They demurred, generally, to the declaration; but their demurrer was overruled. They then pleaded “covenants performed;” and, issue being joined thereupon, a ver- was found *for the plaintiff, and judgment entered accordingly, which was reversed by the district Court of Suffolk, on the ground that “the charter-party clearly proved the intention of the contracting parties too bind themselves as agents, and not as principals; although some of the expressions are strongly characteristic of the contrary.” Whereupon, the plaintiff appealed to this Court.
Thursday, December 10th, 1812, the cause was argued by-■,
for the appellant: no counsel appearing for the appellees.
See monographic note on “Covenant, The Action of ” appended to Lee v. Cooke, I Wash. 306.

Opinion:
Saturday, March 6th, 1813.
JUDGE ROANE
pronounced the opinion of this Court; that the judgment of the district Court be reversed, and' that of the borough Court affirmed.