In re the Assignment of Bateman

duce the mythical Hood to prove an actual delivery of the bonds to Bateman. To meet this we undertake to show that Bateman was the real and undisclosed principal, and it is our evidence in this behalf which was improperly excluded.” The evidence offered was of prior negotiations and of the circumstances attending the execution of the contract; and its object was, not to show Hood a myth, but to prove Bateman the principal whom Hood represented It was excluded on the ground that previous negotiations were merged in the written agreement, and parol evidence incompetent to modify it. Appellant recognizes the rule that oral testimony is inadmissible to add to a written contract, like this, complete in itself, or to explain a written contract of which, like this, the meaning is explicit beyond all obscurity or possibility of misapprehension. Broom’s Maxims 619; Corse v. Peck, 102 N. Y., 513 ; 2 St. Rep. 493 ; Lamson Consolidated S. S. Co. v. Hartung, 19 N. Y. Supp. 233 ; 46 St. Rep., 191 . But he says the case comes within the exceptions, that parol evidence is competent to discover an undisclosed principal, Briggs v. Partridge, 64 N. Y., 357 , 362, and that a written contract is conclusive only between parties and privies, whereas his controversy is with a stranger to the instrument. Coleman v. First Nat. Bank, 53 N. Y., 388 . Manifestly, upon the principle of neither exception was the evidence allowable. Where a party contracts with an agent as such, in ignorance of the existence of a principal, he may on' discovering the principal, elect to hold him. But, if he know the principal at the time of the contract and yet chooses to engage with the agent, he is estopped afterward to go against the principal. So much is implied in the terms of the proposition that a party may pursue an undisclosed principal; and, indeed, the rule is elementary, neither needing nor permitting citation of authority in its support. If Bateman was the principal of Hood, appellant knew it at the time. He says: “He supposed he was selling the road to Bateman; when the contract came to be signed it was executed in Hood’s name.” Bateman was present. With knowledge of the principal, appellant chose to contract with the agent, and he is bound by his election. Bish. on Contracts § 1085. Evidence, therefore, to hold Bate-man as principal was clearly incompetent. Neither was the evidence admissible on the principle that a written contract concludes only parties and privies. Hpon this point appellant assumes a position which is the negation of his former contention. Then he said Bateman, as principal—was party to the contract made by his agent. Now he insists that he may modify the contract by parol, because Bateman is a stranger to it. In truth neither proposition is correct. Bateman was not a party nor yet a stranger to the contract ; but on appellant’s theory of the case, Bateman was a privy to the contract. In the brief, counsel for appellant opens with the statement that, “ the claimant alleges that these bonds were held in escrow for him by Mr. Bateman, and that the condition having been performed he is entitled to the bonds or their value.” To support this contention appellant put the contract in evidence; and essayed to show that Bateman held the bonds upon the terms •and conditions of the contract, and that by those terms and

conditions he should have delivered the bonds to appellant. This-makes Bateman, in the strictest sense, a privy to the contract, as-much bound by its terms and conditions as if he were formerly a party to it—bound however, not as the'principal of Hood, but-as the bailee to whom, under the contract, the bonds were entrusted. The case then is within the rule, not the exception ; and. the written contract was conclusive between appellant and Bate-man. It was not competent to appellant to show by parol that Bateman held the bonds on any other terms or conditions than as stipulated in the written agreement; and the referee rightly rejected the offer. But, assuming the exclusion of the evidence unwarrantable, still the judgment must stand. By the findings of the referee that Bateman never held the bonds, the decision was-inevitably against the appellant, whatever the determination upon other issues. The error, then, was of no prejudice to the appellant. In any aspect of the case, therefore, the exception on-which appellant relies is futile. The findings of fact are supported by the evidence, and from them judgment from the respondent is a necessary conclusion. Judgment affirmed with costs.

All concur.