Kaulback v. Churchill
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for apples sold and delivered. The defendant, residing in this state, was the agent of A. & O. W* Mead & Co., a firm doing business in Boston, and all its members resident in Massachusetts. At the time of the sale of the apples, the plaintiff was informed and knew that the defendant was acting as agent of the firm. A referee found for the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
“If a duly authorized agent uses such terms as legally import an undertaking by the principal only, the contract is that of the principal, and he alone is the party by whom it is to be performed.” Met. on Cont. 106. Whether the defendant assumed a personal liability in making the contract is a question of fact, which has been determined by the finding of the referee. Noyes v. Patrick, 58 N. H. 618. The fact that the firm of A. & O. W. Mead were residents of Massachusetts, doing business there, is not of itself a ground for holding the defendant personally liable. “ The present doctrine is,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Oelricks v. FordSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
- Kirkpatrick v. StainerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Martin v. LivingstonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896
- Northern Laminate v. Electra PolymersDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1996