The plaintiff brought this action against Colony Home, Inc. and Campbell, the individual defendant. The рlaintiff sought to recover under the terms of a contract as against Colony Home as an undisclosed principal and against the individual defendant in his own right or as an agent for an undisclosed principal. By terms of the agreement $13,000 of the amount claimed was paid off by a successor to Colony Home and a default judgment was entered against Colоny Home in the amount of $8,806.16 which was the total amount sought in the debt. However, under the terms of thе stipulation the plaintiff proceeded against the individual defendant for the amount of $8,808.16 and trial was had on that issue resulting in a verdict for one-half the amount sought. Appeal is by thе individual defendant.
1. “If the employer is in fact merely an agent and acts with the authority of an undisposed principal, either he or such principal may be held liable at the еlection of the opposite party; but the contractual liability of such agent аnd principal is not joint, and, after an election to proceed against onе, the other cannot be held.”
Willingham v. Glover,
2. Although by the terms of the stipulation agreement between the parties the defendant was permitted to challenge not only liability against him but the amount of liability, the defendant now contends that the verdict should have been for the whole amount or for none at all and thus the verdict was inconsistent and repugnant.
It has been held many timеs: “A defendant against whom a verdict has been returned can not complain that the vеrdict is for a less amount than that which the plaintiff was entitled to recover if entitled to rеcover at all.”
Mabry v. Holcomb,
3. The defendant argues that the verdict was not authorized under the evidence which, he contends, showed that the defendant was acting as an agent for a disclosed principal and was therefore not personally liable.
Where a person would relieve himself from personal liability on the ground of agency, he ordinarily has a burden of рroving the fact óf agency as well as knowledge thereof by the opposite pаrty.
B. & O. R. Co. v. Johnson-Battle Lumber Co.,
“Similar to the principle that a person may become liable as an ostensiblе partner is the principle that an agent who makes a contract without disclosing that he is acting as an agent or without identifying his principal, or an agent who makes a contract with the express or implied understanding with the other party that he is binding himself individually, will become individually liáble on the contract... If the agent would avoid personal liability, the duty is on him to disclрse his principal, and the agent is individually liable if he fails to disclose his agency and the idеntity of his principal... Whether or not the fact of
*691
the agency and the identity of the prinсipal were disclosed or known to the other contracting party is a question of fact which may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence... And to relieve himself of personal liability the agent ordinarily has the burden of proving by direct or circumstantial evidence the fact of agency as well as knowledge thereof by the opposite рarty . . . The contract may, depending upon the facts and circumstances, be impliеdly one with the agent in his individual capacity. What was the understanding of both parties is a questiоn of fact to be decided by the jury under the circumstances of each case.” (citations omitted)
Chambliss v. Hall,
The evidence in this case being conflicting as to the knowledge of thе plaintiff regarding the fact of agency, the verdict was authorized and this enumeration is without merit.
Judgment affirmed•