
    Benjamin Ford, Plaintiff in Error, v. John S. and Herman Williams.
    Where a contract is made by an agent, the principal whom he represents may maintain an action upon it .in his own name, although the name of the principal was not disclosed at the time of making the contract; and, although the contraot.be in writing, parol evidence is admissible to show that the agent was acting for his principal.
    [Me. 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.
    Eord lived in New York, and brought an action against John S. Williams & Brother upon the following contract:
    Baltimore, October 31, Í855.
    Eor 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 Eebruary next, at his option, 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 & BBO.
    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, Eord 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.
   Mr. Justice GRIER

delivered the opinion of the court.

The single question presented for our decision in this ease 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 is informed that the person with whom he is dealing is merely the agent for another, and prefers to deal with the agent personally on his own credit, he will not be allowed afterwards to charge the principal; but when he deals with the agent, without any disclosure of the fact of his agency, he may elect to treat the after-discovered principal as the person with whom he contracted.

The contract of the agent is the contract of the principal, and he may sue or be sued thereon, though not named thereiu; and notwithstanding the rule of law that an agreement reduced to writing may not be contradicted or varied by parol, it is well settled that the principal may show that the agent who made the contract in his own name was acting for him. This proof does not contradict the.writing; it only explains the transaction. But the agent, who binds himself, will not be allowed to contradict the writing by proving that he was contracting only as agent, while the same evidence will be admitted. to charge . the principal. “ Such evidence (says Baron Parke) does not deny that the contract binds those whom on its face it purports to bind; but shows that it also binds another, by reason that the act of the agent is the act of the principal.” (See Higgins v. Senior, 9 Meeson and Wilsby, 843.) .

The array of cases and treatises cited by the plaintiff’s eoun sel shows conclusively that this question is settled, not only by the'courts of England and many of the States, but by this court. (See New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants’ Bank, 6 How., 381, et cas. ib. cit.)

The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, and a a venire de novo awarded.  