32 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



successfully made by the maker of accommodation paper as against 

 one who took it after it was due, it follows that he could not make 

 it as against one who took a demand accommodation note an un- 

 reasonable time after its execution. A note executed by a member 

 of a cooperative association and delivered to it, and on which the 

 association could not successfully sue the member, and on which 

 money had not been borrowed or credit obtained, is not a part of 

 the assets of the association. In case the association fails or goes 

 into the hands of a receiver, the receiver could not enforce such a 

 note against the member, for he stands in no better position than 

 the association,^" On the other hand, if the note is one on which 

 the association could successfully^ sue, it follows that it is part of 

 the assets of the association, and a receiver would be able to main- 

 tain a suit thereon. 



AGENCY. 



COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS AS AGENT. 



As a general rule, whatever an individual may do in person he 

 may do through an agent. And the doctrine is well established 

 that one who acts through an agent acts himself. An agent derives 

 all of his authority from his principal, the one for whom he is acting. 

 Cooperative associations frequently act as agents for members in 

 the sale of produce or the purchase of supplies, and it is therefore 

 important to consider the rights and liabilities of such associations 

 and of their members under these circumstances. 



A case ^^ d-ecided in 1922, by the Supreme Court of Washington, 

 illustrates one of the important problems which may arise. The 

 Peach Fruit Growers' Co. entered into a contract in its name cover- 

 ing the sale and delivery of fruit of its members. Certain of the 

 members of the Fruit Growers' Co. delivered a part of their fruit to 

 plaintiff, but sold and disposed of a quantity thereof to another 

 dealer. Plaintiff brought suit against the members in question to 

 recover an amount equal to the profits which it claimed it would 

 have made if the members had delivered all the fruit in accordance 

 with the contract. The contract as stated was with the Fruit Grow- 

 ers Co., and did not state that it was made for the benefit of the 

 members. Defendants claimed that for this reason they could not 

 be sued on the contract. The court held that plaintiff could maintain 

 a suit against the defaulting members for the reason that the mem- 

 bers had delivered some fruit to plaintiff under the contract. In this 

 connection the court said : " If a principal not disclosed by a contract 



10 Rankin v. City Natl. Bank, 208 U. S. 541 ; Skud v. Tillinghast, 195 Fed. 1 ; In 

 Taskers Estate, 182 Pa. 122. 



i^Barnett Bros. v. J. F. Lynn et ux., (Wash.) 203 Pac. 389; see also (Oreg.) Phez v. 

 Salem Fruit Union, 201 Pac. 222, 205 Pac. 970. 



