Court Opinion

ID: 6542487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:16:52.488368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:52.316949
License: Public Domain

Cockrill, C. J.  pleading and paraticeL: Parties. No reason is disclosed for allowing a recovery for the benefit of Thomas E. McMahon in the name of John McMahon. He is not a trustee for Thomas E.; the mortgage contract was not made in his name; nor is he a person with whom the contract was made and therefore entitled to sue in his own name, within the meaning of sec. 4936 of Mansf. Dig. It is true that the plaintiff, John McMahon, conducted the negotiations which led to the mortgage, and also directed its execution, but he is not a party to the instrument, and in all his dealings was only the agent of Thomas E. McMahon, the mortgagee. An agent, who makes a contract for his principal, in the principal’s name, is not, in any legal sense, a person with whom the contract is made; the contract in such a case is with the principal only, and he alone is authorized to enforce it. Bliss on Code Pl., sec. 56. The agent in such a case has not necessarily even the implied authority to discharge the contract by receiving what is due upon it, much less the right to enforce payment by suit. Meyer, Bannerman & Co. v. Stone, 46 Ark., 210. The court erred, therefore, in instructing the jury that John McMahon could in any event recover the property in dispute upon the faith of the mortgage executed to Thomas E. McMahon. If John McMahon was the bailee of the property, or had a special interest in it, as he testified, he could maintain an action in his own name against one who wrongfully deprived him of the possession. Bliss Code Pl., sup. But the evidence was conflicting upon that phase of the case, and we cannot disregard the error pointed out. Reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial in accordance with this opinion.