Benjamin Ford, Plaintiff In Error v. John and Herman Williams
| Decision Date | 01 December 1858 |
| Parties | BENJAMIN FORD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN S. AND HERMAN WILLIAMS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[MR. JUSTICE WAYNE DID NOT SIT IN THIS CAUSE.]
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Maryland.
Ford lived in New York, and brought an action against John S. Williams & Brother upon the following contract:
BALTIMORE, October 31, 1855.
For and in consideration of the sum of one dollar, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, we have this day purchased from John W. Bell, and agree to receive from him in all the month of February next, at his opinion, two thousand barrels Howard street super flour, we paying for the same at the rate of nine dollars per barrel, on the day the said flour is ready for delivery.
JOHN S. WILLIAMS & BRO.
Upon the trial in the court below, much evidence was given which it is not necessary to recite in the present aspect of the case. The court, on the application of the defendants' counsel, instructed the jury that, upon the above contract, Ford could not recover. The only question in the case was whether, assuming the contract to have been made for the benefit of the plaintiff, without any disclosure to the defendants of his interest, he was competent to maintain a suit in his own name.
It was argued by Mr. Brown for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Nelson for the defendants.
The case of the New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. The Merchants' Bank (6 Howard, 381) was considered to be decisive of the question.
There is no marginal note in the report of that case, showing that the point was made. The reason was, that there were eight judges upon the bench, only three of whom concurred with Mr. Justice Nelson in the opinion which he delivered, although Mr. Justice Woodbury concurred in the judgment. There being no opinion, therefore, of the court, as such, the reporter did not think himself authorized to insert in his head note all the points ruled in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Nelson.
The single question presented for our decision in this case is, whether the principal can maintain an action on a written contract made by his agent in his own name, without disclosing the name of the principal.
It is not necessary to the validity of a contract, under the statute of frauds, that the writing disclose the principal. In the brief memoranda of these contracts usually made by brokers and factors, it is seldom done. If a party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Preferred Care of Del., Inc. v. Crocker
...is the contract of the principal, and he may sue or be sued thereon, though not named therein.” Id. (quoting Ford v. Williams , 62 U.S. 21 How. 287, 289, 16 L.Ed. 36 (1858) ).The first paragraph of the Arbitration Agreement at issue states that the agreement is between the nursing facility ......
-
Little Rock, Hot Springs & Texas Railway Company v. Spencer
... ... Railway Co., 59 Ark. 81, the ... plaintiff, Tucker, sued the company, setting up in his ... conviction that the court had fallen into error in the ... construction of this statute, which, ... ...
-
Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Richard F. Kline, Inc.
...(emphasis added.) Hence, Kline need not rely upon the "presumption" discussed supra at n. 6.8 That case is Ford v. Williams, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 287, 289, 16 L.Ed. 36 (1858) in which the sole holding is that an undisclosed principal can "maintain an action on a written contract made by his ag......
-
Cooper v. Ft. Smith & W. R. Co.
...the rule of law that an agreement reduced to writing may not be contradicted or varied by parol evidence."See, also, Ford v. Williams, 21 HOW 287, 16 L. Ed. 36. ¶30 Shuetze et al v. Bailey et al., 40 Mo. 69, was a suit upon a contract for one-half the cost of a party wall. It recited that i......