Opinion
Opinion filed May 29, 1933.
1. AGENCY — when written contract shows on its face that agents are contracting parties. A written contract, which describes certain of the parties thereto as "representatives" of a named third person and which is signed in a manner conforming to that description, shows on its face that the "representatives" are the contracting parties.
2. EVIDENCE — when parol evidence is not admissible to add party to written contract. Parol evidence is not admissible to show that a written contract was intended to bind a person who is not mentioned as a party to the contract and whose name is not signed thereto.
3. AGENCY — when agent is not jointly liable with principal on contract. An agent is not jointly liable with his principal on a contract which the agent authorizedly executed in behalf of his principal.
Appeal by plaintiff from the Circuit Court of Washington county; the Hon. HENRY G. MILLER, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1933. Affirmed. Opinion filed May 29, 1933.
HOUSE HOUSE, JUNE C. SMITH and HUGH V. MURRAY, JR., for appellant.
J. PAUL CARTER and FARMER KLINGEL, for appellee W. G. Frank; AMOS W. THARP and BAKER LESEMANN, for other appellees.
Appellant sued W. G. Frank, Lee A. Friend, O. B. Hassler and Lee A. Friend and O. B. Hassler, partners, doing business as Friend Hassler, to recover on a written contract. By the terms of the contract appellant is the party of the first part and the parties of the second part are described as Friend Hassler, representatives of W. G. Frank, and the contract was signed "Friend Hassler, Representatives of W. G. Frank, per Lee A. Friend." Demurrers were interposed to the declaration as amended and were sustained by the court. Appellant elected to stand by his declaration and there was a judgment in bar of the action.
It will be observed that W. G. Frank is not mentioned as a party to the contract, nor did he or any other person sign his name thereto. On the face of the contract it clearly appears that Friend Hassler were the contracting parties as agents or representatives of Mr. Frank. Parol evidence would not be admissible to show that it was intended by the contract to bind Mr. Frank; Vail v. Northwestern Life Ins. Co., 192 Ill. 567.
Even if parol evidence were admissible to show that it was in fact the contract of Mr. Frank, yet this suit could not be maintained. If Friend and Hassler, or Lee A. Friend were the agents of Mr. Frank and had authority to bind him by this contract they would not be jointly liable with him. An agent having authority to execute a contract for his principal is not jointly liable with the principal thereon. In any view of the case the court did not err in sustaining the demurrers and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.