Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/442

 ;

220 Sect.

Agency. 1.

Liabilities

of Agent.

or indicates by an addition to his signature (m), that he is contracting as agent only on behalf of a principal, he is not liable, unless therest of the contract clearly involves his personal liability (n), or

unless he

Usage.

Parol evidence.

Where identity of principal disclosed.

shown

to be the real principal (o). the construction of a written contract, the agent is held not to have contracted personally, evidence of usage is admissible to make him liable (p), unless the usage is inconsistent with the express contract (q). But no parol evidence of intention is admissible to exonerate him from liability contrary to the term& of the contract (?•), except that by way of equitable defence he may set up an express agreement between himself and the other contracting party to that effect (s). is

When, on

464. Where a person in making a contract discloses both the existname of a principal on whose behalf he purports to make it, he is not, as a general rule, liable on the contract to the other contracting party {t), whether he had in fact authority to make it or not (a) but a personal liability may be imposed upon him by the express terms of the contract (h), by the ordinary course of business (c), or by usage (d). In particular an agent who makes a. contract on behalf of a foreign principal is personally liable on the contract, although he discloses the name of the principal (e), unless ence and the



the terms of the contract are inconsistent with his liability (/). (m) Hntcheson v. Eato7i (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 861, per Brett, M.R., at p. 865 ; Fleet V. Murton (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 126, per Blackburn, J., at p. 131. Weidner v. Hogyett (1876), I'C. P. D. 533 and see Lennard v. Rohinson (1855), 5 E. & B. 125. (o) Carr v. Jackson (1852), 7 Exch. 382. (p) Hiitcliinson v. Tatham (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 482 ; Fleet v. Murton, supra; Pike V. Ongley (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 708 Hamfrey v. Bale (1857), 7 E. & B. 266; Imperial Bank v. London and St. Katharine Docks Co, (1877), 5 Ch. D. 195 Bacmeister v. Fenton (1883), 1 Cab. & El. 121. {q) Barrow v. Dyster (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 635. (r) Hiqgins v. Senior (1841), 8 M. & W. 834 ; Jones v. Littledale (1837), 6 L. J. (k. b.) 169. (s) V. Harrop (1862), 1 H. & C. 202. {t) Jenkins v. Hutchinson (1849), 13 Q. B. 744 Paquin v. Beauclerk, [1906] A. C. 148. The same rule applies to public agents contracting on behalf of the;





WaU



0' Grady v. Cardwell v. Haldimand (1786), 1 Term Eep. 172 (1873), 21 W. E. 340, Ir.). (a) Leiuis v. Nicholson (1852), 18 Q. B. 503. (6) Jlall V. Ashurst (1833), 1 C. & M. 714; McCollin v. Oilpin (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 516; Woolfe v. Home (1877), 2 Q, B. D. 355; Burrell v. Jones B. 942 ; and contrast Aid. 47; Parker v. Winhnu (1857), 7 E. (1819), 3 B. Eedpath v. Wigy (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 335. public agent may bind himself personally ( Clutterhuck v. Coffin (1842), 3 Man. & G. 842 Graham v. PuUic Works Commissioners, [1901] 2 K. B. 781). -This is a question of fact {Auty v.

Crown {Macheath



&

&

A



Hutchinson (1848), 6 0. B. 266). (c)

1

D.

Warlow

&

v. Plarrison (1859), 1

E.

&

E. 309; Newton v. Chambers (1844),

L. 869.

(d) Bayliffe y. Butter worth {1841), 1 Exch. 425 Hodgkinson v. Kelly (1868), L. E. 6 Eq. 496 and see, further, title Stock Exchange. (e) Hutton v. Bulloch (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 572, approving Armstrong v. Stokes Wilson v. Zulueta {1849), (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 598, _per Blackburn J., at p. 605 14 Q. B. 405. (/) Deslandes v. Gregory (1860), 30 L. J. (q. b.) 36 Elhinger Actien-Gesellschaft V. Claye (1873),L. E. 8 Q. B. 313, per Blackburn, J., at p. 317; GaddY. Houghton (1876), 1 Ex. D. 357, disapproving Paice v. Walker (1870), L. E. 5 Exch. 173 Ogden v. Hall (1879), 40 L. T. 751 Mahony v. Kekide (1854), 14 0. B. 390.