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.1? 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™ 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 
_ Rankin v. City Natl. Bank, 208 U. S. 541; Skud v. Tillinghast, 195. Fed; 13 in 
Taskers Estate, 182 Pa. 122. 
1 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. 
