
    KELLER v. HAUG.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 21, 1905.)
    Principal and Agent—Undisclosed Principal—Liability.
    Where defendant was the owner of a business about which work was done and for which materials were furnished, and her husband was manager of the business, defendant was liable as an undisclosed principal on a promise of her husband to pay for the work and materials.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 40, Cent. Dig. Principal and Agent, §§ 513-516, 518.)
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan,* Third District.
    
      Action by John Keller against Rose Haug. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BISCHOFF and MacLEAN, JJ.
    Jones Cochrane, for appellant.
    Peter Klein, for respondent.
   MacLEAN, J.

Being sued on an account stated, and the account and promise to pay by the husband of the defendant being proven, the defendant may not escape liability; for it appears that she was the owner of the business where work was done and materials furnished and that her husband was manager of the place. “To allow an undisclosed principal to absorb the profits, and then, when the pinch comes, to escape responsibility” for a business so conducted, offers too large an opportunity for fraud. Hubbard v. Tenbrook, 124 Pa. 291, 296, 16 Atl. 817, 2 L. R. A. 823, 10 Am. St. Rep. 585 ; Watteau v. Fenwick, 1 Q. B. 346.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.  