Milonas

Plaintiff recovered judgment for $1040

unpaid rent for premises occupied by defendants under a written lease signed by George Sarantitis alone. The defendants other than George Sarantitis appeal on typewritten transcripts.

The trial court found that all the defendants were engaged in business as copartners and that “by consent and agreement of all parties, said George I. Sarantitis subscribed and executed” the lease in his individual name “for and on behalf of himself and his said brothers and copartners”. The appellants attack this finding as not supported by the evidence, but say that it would be too difficult to print the evidence to establish their point. Respondent has printed sufficient evidence to sustain the finding. The liability of the appellants thus rests upon the well-settled rule that where a person is known to be acting as the agent of a disclosed principal the latter is bound upon the principle that the contract of the agent, within the scope of his authority, is, in legal effect, the contract of the principal. (Geary St. etc. R. R. Co. v. Rolph, 189 Cal. 59, 65, 66 [ 207 Pac. 539 ] ; Marshall v. Bernheim, 64 Cal. App. 283, 285 [221 Pac. 401]; Pacific Ready-Cut…