Opinion ID: 1171158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of Marion Conger.

Text: [6] Defendant Marion Conger contends that affirmance of the judgment against John Blair necessitates reversal of the judgment against her. She relies on several cases holding that a party suing on a contract may be forced to elect between a judgment against an undisclosed principal and a judgment against his agent. ( Klinger v. Modesto Fruit Co., Inc., 107 Cal. App. 97, 100 [290 P. 127]; McDevitt v. Corriea ( Chas. ) & Bros., 70 Cal. App. 245, 254 [233 P. 381]; Ewing v. Hayward, 50 Cal. App. 708, 717 [195 P. 970]; contra: Montgomery v. Dorn, 25 Cal. App. 666, 670 [145 P. 148]; Jewell v. Colonial Theater Co., 12 Cal. App. 681, 685 [108 P. 527]; McKee v. Cunningham, 2 Cal. App. 684, 688 [84 P. 260]; see Craig v. Buckley, 218 Cal. 78, 81 [21 P.2d 430]; Rest., Agency, § 201(1); 39 Cal.L.Rev. 409.) That rule is inapplicable here. The evidence discloses that John Blair was not only a party to the contract but that he also acted as an agent, and the deposit receipt at least indirectly identified Louise Blair as his principal. (Rest., Agency, §§ 144, 146, 184; see, Geary St. etc. R. Co. v. Rolph, 189 Cal. 59, 65-66 [207 P. 539].) Even if we assume that Louise Blair was an undisclosed principal the trial court properly refused to require plaintiffs to make an election. [7] At the outset of the trial it was stipulated that John Blair, in signing the agreement, acted as agent for Louise Blair, that he had full authority to act as such agent, and that his act bound her. It was further stipulated that Marion Conger, as successor in interest to Louise Blair, deceased, expressly assumes and agrees to pay and discharge any and all liabilities or obligations claimed or asserted by plaintiffs against defendants in the above entitled action, if and as adjudicated in this action. Counsel for defendants stated, I stipulated [that this document] bound Mrs. Blair but I do not stipulate it bound Mr. Blair. He signed as agent and he is not bound except as agent. Counsel for plaintiffs replied, I accept counsel's stipulation as far as it goes. We, of course, contend Mr. Blair was bound, that he acted not only as agent for his wife but also acted individually. Marion Conger's liability was conceded by the stipulation. She cannot now successfully contend that Louise Blair was an undisclosed principal and that by obtaining judgment against John Blair plaintiffs elected to release her from liability. ( Williams v. General Ins. Co., 8 Cal.2d 1, 5 [63 P.2d 289]; Stanton v. Santa Ana Sugar Co., 84 Cal. App. 206, 210 [257 P. 907].) Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the stipulation and to try the case on the assumption that it remained for them only to prove that John Blair was also liable.