History
  • No items yet
midpage
Horan v. Hughes
129 F. 248
S.D.N.Y.
1903
Check Treatment
HOLT, District Judge.

Hughes made the contract with Horan. He is therefore presumably responsible on it. His defense is, in substance, that he was acting as agent for a principal. To maintain such a defense, he must prove that he disclosed the name of his principal. It is not sufficient that he was acting as agent, or that the other party to the contract supposed he was acting as agent, if he did not know who the principal was. De Remer v. Brown, 165 N. Y. 419, 59 N. E. 129; Tew v. Wolfsohn (Court of Appeals) 66 N. E. 934. The evidence in this case, in my opinion, preponderates that Hughes either chartered Horan’s boat himself, or that, if Horan supposed Hughes was acting as agent, he did not know who Hughes’ principal was.

There should be a decree for the libelant for the amount demanded in the libel, with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Horan v. Hughes
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: May 15, 1903
Citation: 129 F. 248
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.