that the case against the company was that it was "merely the creature of ( Home), and [he] is Cornmitting.~~aches of the covefiant by the agency of [the aomgarzy~". He fauxid, at page 943, that the coreparty was "a company which . , . is obviously carried ~on wholly by [Mr ~Iorne]" and t~lat it was "the cTa~nnel through which [hey was carrying on leis business". He ~lst~ said, at page 944, that the plai3z~iff's clai~n.~~as w1~olly dependant on the covei3ants in the service agreement and that "u~iless tt~e plaintiff can succeed o~7 the agreement i~self, this action cannot succeed ~t aII