Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/98

 367; Cowel v. Anderson, 33 Minn. 374; 23 N. W. Rep. 542; Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319, 40 N. W. Rep. 66; Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288; Dickson v. Harris, 60 Iowa 727, 13 N. W. Rep. 335; Allen v. Furbish, 4 Gray 504. Where an agent contracts in behalf of his principal the contract must be in the name of the principal, and not in his own name. If the agent contracts in his own name he alone is liable. Comp. Laws, $3984; Mechem, Ag. $$432-438; Sencerbox v. McGrade, 6 Minn. 484 (Gil 334); Heffner v. Brownell, 70 Iowa 591, 31 N. W. Rep. 947; also 75 Iowa 341, 39 N. W. Rep. 640; Deering v. Thom, 29 Minn. 120, 12 N. W. Rep. 350; Mayhew v. Prince, 11 Mass. 54; Spencer v. Field, 10 Wend. 87. In view of the well established principles of law underlying this case and laid down in the authorities cited, it is entirely clear that the answer does not set out any defense to plaintiff's cause of action. The judgment must be reversed, and the district court directed to enter judgment as demanded in the complaint It will be so ordered. All concur.

Corliss, C. J., in concurring, expresses no opinion on the point that the laws of the jurisdiction where a contract is made or to be performed are, in the absence of proof to the contrary, presumed to be the same as the laws of the forum so far as statute law is concerned.

HARMAN YERKES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TAYLOR CRUM, Defendant and Appellant.

Attorney and Client-Acquiring Title Adverse to Client-Amendment of Answer.

1. While the relation of attorney and client continues the attorney can, as against his client, acquire no beneficial interest in or title to the subject-matter of the litigation antagonistic to the title or interest of his client. Whether or not such title so acquired can be assailed by a third party is a question upon which the members of this court are not agreed.

2. Where an answer shadows forth a good defense, but states it imperfectly, the defect should be met by a motion calling for an amend-