32 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
tant to consider the rights and liabilities of such associations and of 
their members under these circumstances. 
A case 11 decided 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 
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, 12 decided at the same time and involving the 
same contract, the facts being that the members sued had not de- 
livered 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' Co. It 
is clear that in either of the cases just discussed the buyer of the 
fruit could have sued the Fruit Growers' Co. for the loss sustained 
through failure to deliver all the fruit contracted for. Of course, if 
in the contract with the buyer it had been stipulated that it should 
look to the company exclusively, the members could not have been 
successfully sued in either case, 
It should be noted -in this connection that a provision in the con- 
tract of an association with its members can not be invoked to relieve 
the members of liability to third persons under circumstances simi- 
lar to those involved in the cases just discussed, unless such provi- 
sion was brought to the attention of the persons with whom the 
association contracted prior thereto. 13 In the Federal courts, and 
it is believed in most States, the fruit buyer in the last Washington 
case referred to above would have been allowed to sue the members 
"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. 
12 Barnett Bros. r. S. F. Lynn et ux., (Wash.) 203 Pac. 387. 
18 Kruse v. Seiffert, etc., Lumber Co., 108 Iowa 352. 
