Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/19

Rh West, that "In point of law the master and servant, or principal and agent, are considered as one and the same person."

I have found no early cases turning upon the law of undisclosed principal. It will be remembered that the only action on simple contract before Henry VI., and the chief one for a good while after, was debt, and that this was founded on a quid pro quo received by the debtor. Naturally, therefore, the chief question of which we hear in the earlier books is whether the goods came to the use of the alleged debtor. It is at a much later date, though still in the action of debt, that we find the most extraordinary half of the rule under consideration first expressly recognized. In Scrimshire v. Alderton (H. 16 G. II.) a suit was brought by an undisclosed principal against a purchaser from a del credere factor. Chief Justice Lee "was of opinion that this new method [i.e., of the factor taking the risk of the debt for a larger commission] had not deprived the farmer of his remedy against the buyer." And he was only prevented from carrying out his opinion by the obstinacy of the jury at Guildhall. The language quoted implies that the rule was then well known, and this, coupled with the indications to be found elsewhere, will perhaps warrant the belief that it was known to Lord Holt.

Scott v. Surman, decided at the same term that Scrimshire v. Alderton was tried, refers to a case of T. 9 Anne, Gurratt v. Cullum, in which goods were sold by factors to J. S. without disclosing their principal. The factors afterwards went into bankruptcy. Their assignee collected the debt, and the principal then sued him for the money. "And this matter being referred by Holt for the opinion of the King's Bench, judgment was given on argument for the plaintiff. Afterwards at Guildhall, before Lord Chief Justice Parker, this case was cited and allowed to be law, because though it was agreed that payment by J. S. to [the factors] with whom the contract was