Bridenstine v. Gerlinger Motor Car Co., 86 Or. 411, 420-21, 168 P. 73 (1917). Held v. Puget Sound Etc. Co., 135 Or. 283, 287, 295 P. 969 (1931). "One who contracts to acquire property from a third person and convey it to another is the agent of the other only if it is agreed that he is to act primarily for the benefit of the other and not for himself."

The difficulty here lies not in the statement of the law, but in its application to the factual situation under consideration. We agree that there need be no direct proof of disclosure of agency, but, as said in Held v. Puget Sound, Etc. Co., 135 Or. 283, 295 P. 969, it may be shown by the circumstances and the course of dealing. Since the defendant occasionally acted as agent for principals other than the War Shipping Administration, and, in view of the positive testimony that there was no disclosure of the principal at the time of the rental of the barge, we think the issue of agency was one of fact and not of law.

3. Agency can be proved by circumstances and the course of dealing between the parties. Briggs v. Morgan, 262 Or. 17, 23, 496 P.2d 17 (1972); Held v. Puget Sound, Etc., Co., 135 Or. 283, 287, 295 P. 969 (1931); Bridenstine v. Gerlinger Motor Car Co., 86 Or. 411, 420-421, 168 P. 73 (1917); Co-Operative Copper Co. v. Law, 65 Or. 250, 253, 132 P. 521 (1913). 4. The course of dealing between Tucker and Geldermann convinces the court that Tucker was acting as an agent of Geldermann in Oregon.