LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 95 
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 7 decided in 1922, by the Supreme Court of Washington, 
illustrates one of the important problems that may arise. A Peach 
Fruit Growers' Association entered into a contract in its name cover- 
ing the sale and delivery of fruit to its members. Certain of the 
members of the Fruit Growers' Association delivered a part of their 
fruit to plaintiff, but sold and disposed of a quantity thereof to an- 
other 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 
Growers' Association 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 plain- 
tiff could maintain a suit against the defaulting members because 
they had delivered some fruit to plaintiff under the contract. The 
court said : 
If a principal not disclosed by a contract made by and in the name of his 
agent subsequently claims the benefit of the contract, it thereby becomes his 
own to the same extent as if his name originally appeared as the contracting 
party. 
In a companion case, 8 decided at the same time and involving 
the same contract, the facts being that the members sued had not 
delivered any fruit under the contract, and hence it could not be said 
(as was said in the other case) that they had claimed the benefit 
of the contract, it was held that the plaintiff could not maintain a 
suit against the members involved, and that if any suit was to be 
maintained it would have to be against the Fruit Growers' Associa- 
tion. It is clear that in either of the cases discussed the buyer of 
the fruit could have sued the Fruit Growers' Association for the 
loss sustained through failure to deliver all the fruit contracted 
for. If, in the contract with the buyer, it had been stipulated that 
it should look to the Association exclusively, the members could not 
have been successfully sued in either case. 
It should be noted that a provision in the contract of an association 
with its members can not be invoked to relieve the members of 
liability to third persons under circumstances similar to those in- 
volved in the cases just discussed, unless such provision was brought 
to the attention of the persons with whom the association contracted 
prior thereto. 9 In the Federal courts, and it is believed, in most 
States, the fruit buyer in the last Washington case referred to 
would have been allowed to sue the members who had not delivered 
a part of their fruit. The Supreme Court of the United States 
has said : " The contract of the agent is the contract of the principal, 
and he may sue or be sued thereon, though not named therein." 10 
7 Barnett Bros. v. Lynn et ux., 118 Wash. 315, 203 P. 389 ; see also Phez Co. v. Salem 
Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 201 P. 222, 205 P. 970. 
8 Barnett Bros. v. Lynn et ux., 118 Wash. 308, 203 P. 387. 
9 Kruse v. Seiffert & Weise Lumber Co., 108 Iowa 352, 79 N. W. 118. 
» Ford v. Williams, 62 U. S. 287. 
