Another common illustration arises on these or similar facts: A parent gives property to a son, who upon receiving it promises to make specified payments to daughters or others either at once or upon the death of the donor. There is properly no trust or even equitable charge, because it is contemplated that the son shall deal as he sees fit with the property transferred to him and pay the beneficiaries from any source he chooses. Courts are rightly almost universally unwilling to deny the beneficiaries a remedy in such a case.94 Even in England there are cases that have never been overruled, in which a beneficiary was allowed to recover in an action of debt against a devisee whose devise was left upon the condition that he should make a payment to the beneficiary. If the devisee accepts the gift he is personally liable to perform the duty which he thereby assumes, and his liability is not restricted to the value of the property he has received.95 So far as this question of personal liability is concerned these cases present quite as much difficulty in principle as the cases where the gift is made inter vivos.

90 45 & 46 Vict., c. 75, Sec. 11; Mam.

Stats. 1887, c. 214, Sec. 73; 1894, c. 226. (See Cleaver v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Assoc., [1892] 1 Q. B. 147.

91 Nims v. Ford, 159 Mass. 576, 35 N. £. 100; Wright v. Vermont Life Ins. Co., 151 Mass. 302, 41 N. E. 302.

92See, e. g., Mutual Benefit L. Ins. Co. v. Swett, 222 Fed. 200,137 C. C. A. 640, Ann. Cas. 1917 B. 298; Johnson v. New York L. Ins. Co., 56 Colo. 178, 138 Pac. 414, L. R. A. 1916 A. 868; Neary v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. (Conn.), 103 Atl. 661; Perry v. Tweedy, 128 Ga. 402, 57 S. E. 782, 119 Am. St. Rep. 393, 11 Ann. Cos. 46; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v Devine, 180 111. App. 422; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Culler (Ind. App.), 119 N. E. 173; Townsend v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 163 Ia. 713, 144 N. W. 574, L. R. A. 1915 A. 109; Filley v. Illinois Life Ins. Co., 91 Kan. 220, 137 Pac. 793, 93 Kans. 193, 144 Pac. 257, L. R. A. 1915 D. 130, 134;

Breard v. New York Life Ins. Co., 138 La. 774, 70 So. 799; Martin v. Ętna L. Ins. Co., 73 Me. 25; Metropolitan Ins. Co. v. Clanton, 76 N. J. Eq. 4, 73 Atl. 1052; In re Gebert, 95 N. Y. Misc. 477, 160 N. Y. S. 782; Mutual Benefit L. Ins. Co. v. Cummings, 66 Or. 272, 126 Pac. 982,133 Pac 1169,47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 252, Ann. Cos. 1915 B. 535. Marquet v. Ętna Life Ins. Co., 128 Tenn. 213,159 S. W. 733, L. R. A. 1915 B. 749, Ann. Cas. 1915 B. 677. See also infra, Sec. 396, n. 8, and numerous cases, collected in Cooley, Ins. Briefs, p. 3755. Cf. cases of fraternal beneficiary societies, infra, Sec. 396a.

93 Roberts v. Northwestern etc. Co., 143 Ga. 780, 85 S. E. 1043; Indiana 4c. Life Ins. Co. v. McGinnia, 180 Ind. 9, 101 N. E. 289, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 192; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Guller (Ind. App), 119 N. E. 173, 177; Holder v. Prudential Ins. Co., 77 S. C. 299, 67 S. E. 853.

94 Beats v. Beals, 20 Ind. 163; Henderson v. McDonald, 84 Ind. 149; Waterman v. Morgan, 114 Ind. 237, 16 N. E. 590; Stereos p. Flannagan, 131 Ind. 122, 30 N. E. 898; Grant v. Brad-street, 87 Me. 583, 33 Atl. 166; Wein-reich v. Weinreieh, 18 Mo. App. 364; Weinhard p. R. R. Thompson Eat. Co., 242 Fed. 315 (D. C. Oreg.); Knowles v. Erwin, 43 Hun, 150, 124 N. Y. 633, 26 N. E. 759; Luce v. Gray, 92 Hun, 699, 36 N. Y. S. 1065; Feldman v. McGuire, 34 Oreg. 309, 55 Pac. 872; Thompson p. Gordon, 3 Strobh. 196. See also Lawrence p. Oglesby, 178 111 122, 52 N. E. 945; Burson p. Bogart, 49 Col. 410, 113 Pac 616.

Contra are Townaend v. Rackham, 143 N. Y. 516, 38 N. E. 731; Coleman p. Hiler, 86 Hun, 547, 33 N. Y. S. 357 (the promisee in three cases was under no moral duty to the beneficiaries); Guthrie v. Kerr, 85 Pa. 303 (cf. Hoe-tetter p. Bollinger, 117 Pa. 606, 12 Atl. 741). Relief in an action at law was also denied in Baxter v. Camp, 71 Conn. 245, 41 Atl. 803,42 L. R. A. 514, 71 Am. St. Rep. 169, and Linneman p. Morons, 98 Mich. 178, 57 N. W. 103, 39 Am. St. Rep. 528, but it was suggested that the plaintiff might have a remedy in equity.

95 Ewer v. Jones, 2 Ld. Ray. 934, 2 Salk. 415; 6 Mod. 25; Webb v. Jiggs, 4 M. & S. 113; Braithwaite p. Skinner,

5 M. &W. 313. In the last case it was said by some of the judges that the plaintiff's recovery would be restricted to the value of the land.

In the United States the devisee is personally liable without restriction. Harland v. Person, 93 Ala. 273, 9 So. 379; Williams p. Nichol 47 Ark. 254, 1 S. W. 243; Millington p. Hill, 47 Ark. 301, 1 S. W. 647; Lord v. Lord, 22 Conn. 695; Ohnstoad v. Brush, 27 Conn. 630; Zimmer v. Sennott, 134 111. 605, 26 N. E. 774; La Valle v. Droit, 179 111. App. 4S4; Porter v. Jackson, 95 Ind. 210,48 Am. Rep. 704; Owing's Case, 1 Bland 370, 17 Am. Dec. 311; Fetch v. Taylor, 13 Pick. 133; Bacon v. Woodward, 12 Gray, 376,382; Adams v. Adams, 14 Allen, 650 Prentice v. Brimhall, 123 Mass. 291, 293; Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 630, 636; Wiggin p. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561; Glen v. Fisher, 6 Johns. Ch. 33, 10 Am. Dec. 310; Gridley p. Gridley, 24 N. Y. 130; Loder p. Hatfield, 71 N. Y. 92; Brown v. Knapp, 79 N. Y. 136; Yearly v. Long, 40 Ohio St. 27; Fliokinger v. Saum, 40 Ohio St. 691; Hoover p. Hoover, 6 Pa. 361; Etter v. Greena-walt, 98 Pa. 422; Dreer p. Pennsylvania Co., 108 Pa. 226, In re Edmund-son's Est., 259 Pa. 429, 103 Atl. 277; Jordan v. Donahue, 12 R. I. 199; Hodges p. Phelps, 65 Vt. 303, 26 Atl. 625; Taliaferro v. Day, 82 Va. 79.

Sec. 371. No Distinction If Promise Based On Other Valid Consideration

In most jurisdictions no distinction is made and recovery is equally allowed when the promise is based on valid consideration other than a transfer of property; for instance, services or forbearance of a claim.96