Recovery is allowed only where money or property is placed in the hands of the promisor as consideration for his promise. First Methodist Episcopal Church v. Isenberg, 246 Pa. 221, 92 Atl. 141.

Rhode Island. Adams v. Union R. R. Co., 21 R. I. 134, 42 Atl. 515, 44 L. R. A. 273; Gould p. United Traction Mut. Aid Assoc., 26 R. I. 142, 143, 58 Atl. 624; Waterhouse v. Waterhouse, 29 R. I. 485, 72 Atl. 642, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639. See also Blake p. Atlantic Nat. Bank, 33 R. I. 464, 82 Atl. 226, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. But see contra Wilbur p. Wilbur, 17 R. I. 295, 21 Atl. 497.

Courts71 Connecticut,72 Georgia,73 Michigan,74 Minnesota,75

South Carolina. Thompson v. Gordon, 3 Strobh. 196.

Texas. Meyer 0. Walker-Smith Grocer Co., 60 Tex. Civ. App. 462, 127 S. W. 1118; Peters v. Lindsey (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 S. W. 694; Bridge-water v. Hooks (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 8. W. 1004; Hales v. Peters (Tex. Civ. App.), 162 S. W. 386.

Utah. See Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah, 495, SO Pac. 623.

Vermont. Hodges v. Phelps, 65 Vt. 303, 26 Atl. 626. But see contra Crampton d. Ballard, 10 Vt. 251; Hall v. Huntoon, 17 Vt. 244, 44 Am. Dec. 332; Fugure 0. Mut. Soc. of St. Joseph, 46 Vt. 362.

VIRGINIA (statutory). Taliaferro v. Day, 82 Va. 79; But see contra prior to statute Ross v. Milne, 12 Leigh, 204, 37 Am. Dec. 646, also Newberry Land Co. v. Newberry, 95 Va., 1ll, 27 8. E. 897.

West Virginia (statutory). Johnson 0. McCIung, 26 W. Va. 659, 670; Butts v. Butta (W. Va.), 94 8. E. 360.

Wisconsin. Grant v. Diebold Safe Co., 77 Wis. 72, 45 N. W. 951; Tweed-dale v. Tweeddate, 116 Wis. 517, 93 N. W. 440, 61 L. B. A. 60S; Sedgwick v. Blanchard, 164 Wis. 421, 160 N. W. 267.

United States. National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, 25 L. Ed. 75. Conf. Constable v. National Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 51, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903; German Alliance Ins. Co. 0. Home Water Supply Co., 226 U. S. 220, 33 Sup. Ct. 32, 57 L. Ed. 195, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1000; Sayward v. Dexter, 72 Fed. Rep. 768, 44 U. S. App. 376, 19 C. C. A. 176; United States v. National Surety Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 549, 34 C. C. A. 526; Brown &, Haywood Co. v. Ligon, 92 Fed. 851; Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Dancel, 119 Fed. 692, 56 C. C. A. 300.

71Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Dancell, 19 Fed. Rep. 692, 56 C. C. A. 300, and see cases in the preceding paragraph. But see Pennsylvania Steel Co. 0. New York City Ry. Co., 198 Fed. 721, 117 C. C. A. 503.

72 Baxter v. Camp, 71 Conn. 245, 41 Atl. 803, 42 L. R. A. 514, 71 Am. St Rep. 169. The court leaves the question open whether a suit in equity in which the representatives of the promisees were joined could be main-

73 Ogles v. Nashville etc. Ry. Co., 130 Ga. 430, 60 S. E. 1048, 124 Am. St. Rep. 175. Cf. Code, Sec. 3664; Wilson v. First Presbyterian Church, 56 Ga. 554; Crawford v. Wilson, 139 Ga. 654, 78 S. E. 30, 44 L. R. A. 773; Carr v. Louisville 4c. R. Co., 141 Ga. 219, 80 S. E. 716; Jordan v. Dixie Culvert etc Co., 146 Ga. 284, 91 S. E, 68.

74Board of Commerce v. Security Trust Co., 225 Fed. 454, 464,140 C. C. A. 486; Wheeler v. Stewart, 94 Mcih. 445, 54 N. W. 172; Linneman v. Mo-ross, 98 Mich. 178, 57 N. W. 103 (the court left open the question whether there whs an equitable right); Knights of the Modern Maccabees v. Sharp, 163 Mich. 449, 128 N. W. 786, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 780; Signs v. Bush's Est., 199 Mich. 192, 165 N. W. 820; Preston v. Preston (Mich.), 172 N. W. 371 (suit in equity allowed).

75 Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446, 55 N. W. 604, 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am. St. Rep. 618; Union Ry. Storage Co. v. McDermott, 53 Minn. 407, 56 N. W. 606. In the first of these cases the court says, "Where there is nothing but the promise, no consideration from such stranger and no duty or obligation to him on the part of the promisee, he cannot sue upon it."

New Hampshire,76 Vermont,77 Virginia,78 and to some degree Pennsylvania,79 and Oregon,80 do not allow an action. But in the Federal Courts and those of Connecticut, Michigan, Vermont, Virginia, it seems a suit in equity may be maintained.81 The law of New York is not very clear. It has been held in recent decisions that in order to entitle one who is not a party to a contract to sue upon it, the promisee must owe him some duty;82 but it seems that a moral duty is enough, and this gives the court considerable latitude.83 And recent decisions make it probable that ultimately any contract for the sole benefit of a third person may be enforced by him.84 Minnesota has adopted the same requirement of an obligation from the promisee to the beneficiary.85 Missouri has also held some duty necessary and a moral duty sufficient,86 but a late decision inconsistently dispenses with the requirement.87 A suggestion of the sort is occasionally found in other States.88 The supposed

76Curry v. Rogers, 21 N. H. 247.

77Crampton v. Ballard, 10 Vt. 251; Hall v. Huntoon, 17 Vt. 244, 44 Am. Dec. 332; Fugure v. Mut. Soc. of St. Joseph, 46 Vt. 362. But in Hodges v. Phelps, 65 Vt. 303, 28 Atl. 626, it was held that a devise subject to the payment of a legacy imposed a personal liability on the devisee, if be accepted the devise.

78 Roes v. Milne, 12 Leigh, 204, 37 Am. Dec. 546. But see Code, Sec. 2416, construed in Newberry Land Co. v. Newberry, 95 Va. 1ll, 27 8. E. 897. In Taliaferro v. Day, 82 Va, 79, an accepted devise subject to a legacy was held to impose a personal liability.

79 Edmundson v. Penny, 1 Barr. 334, 44 Am. Deo. 137; Guthrie v. Kerr, 85 Pa. 303. See, however, Ayer's Appeal, 28 Pa. 179; Merriman v. Moore, 90 Pa. 78, 81; Hostetter v. Hollinger, 117 Pa. 606, 12 Atl. 741; In re Edmundson's Est., 269 Pa. 429,108 Atl. 277. If the promisor receives property as the consideration for a promise to make payment, though the promisor is under no obligation to use the property received or its proceeds for the purpose, the Pennsylvania court apparently by an unwarranted extension of the law of trusts holds the promisor liable.