
    
      WARING vs. COX.
    
    •A defendant who, to the knowledge of plaintiff, contracts as agent, is not personally responsible.
    Appeal from the court of the first district.
    This was an action to recover from the defendant damages for a breach of contract, and the material facts of the case are as follows:
    In 1827, the defendant, as agent of one Thomas, contracted with the plaintiff, who is own-ner of the schooner Catharine, to transport from Thomas’s Island to New-Orleans the crop of sugar and molasses.
    In pursuance of this agreement, the Catha-rine proceeded to the Island and received on board a cargo of about 80 hogsheads, which was delivered to the defendant. On her again proceeding to the island and demanding a cargo, she was answered it had been shipped to New-Orleans in other vessels, which fact was proved on the trial.
    The answer of the defendant admitted the execution of the contract, but denied that he was personally responsible, having acted only as the agent of Thomas, to the knowledge of plaintiff, and alleged that the plaintiff by his delays, made it necessary for Thomas to employ other vessels in bringning the remainder of the crop.
    It was proved that the plaintiff was at great expense in making himself acquainted with the navigation to Thomas’s Island — that he used every possible dispatch, lost an opportunity of selling his vessel by reason of his engagement with the defendant, and was idle during most of the business season. The crop of Thomas’s Island usually consisted of from 180 to 200 hogsheads. The cause was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for plaintiff for 160 dollars. The defendant appealed.
    Strawbridge, for appellant.
    There is full proof that plaintiff knew the defendant acted only as agent, but no proof that defendant ever assumed any personal responsibility.
    
      Eustis, contra.
    1. The breach of the contract being fully proved, the plaintiff is entitled to damages.
    2. "Cox bound himself personally.
    
      A defendant, who contracts as •agent, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, is not personally kre-•■ejponsible.
   Pouter, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff claims from the defendant damages for failing to comply with a contract, by which he promised to furnish freight for a vessel, of which the former was owner. The cause was submitted to a jury in the court below, who found a verdict against the defendant. The court confirmed it, and he appealed.

The breach of the contract is very fully established. The defendant however insists he contracted as agent, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and is not personally responsible. On this point the evidence is not so clear as in relation to the violation of the agreement, but after an attentive consideration of it, we do not think the jury and judge of the first instance erred in their conclusion.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.  