Ohio. Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 3 Ohio St. 544, 649; Bagaley v. Waters, 7 Ohio St. 369; Dodge v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 30 Ohio St. 1; Emmitt p. Bro-phy, 42 Ohio St. 82.

Oklahoma. Eastman Land Co. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 30 Okla. 566, 120 Pac. 276; Staver Carriage Co. v. Jones, 32 Okla. 713, 123 Pac. 148.

Oregon. Baker v. Eglin, 11 Oreg. 333,8 Pac. 280; Hughes v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., II Oreg. 437, 6 Pac 206; Schneider v. White, 12 Oreg. 503, 8 Pac. 662; Strong v. Kamm, 13 Oreg. 172, 9 Pac. 331; Fekhnan v, McGuirc, 34 Oreg. 309, 310, 55 Pac. 872; Oregon Mill & Grain Co. v. Kirkpatrick,

66 Or. 21, 133 Pac. 69; Baker City Mercantile Co. v. Idaho Ac. Pipe Co.,

67 Oreg. 372, 136 Pac. 23; Davidson v. Madden (Oreg.), 173 Pac. 320. But see contra Washburn v. Interstate Invest. Co., 26 Oreg. 436, 36 Pac 533, 38 Pac. 620.

Pennsylvania (with some limitation). See supra, Sec.Sec. 348, 381. See allowing the creditor a right, Stroh-ecker v. Grant, 16 S. A R. 237, 241; Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts, 104, 26 Am. Dec 107; Commercial Bank v. Wood, 7 W. 4 S. 89; Beers v. Robinson, 9 Barr, 229; Bellas v. Fagely, 19 Pa. 273; Townsend v. Long, 77 Pa. 143, 18 Am. Rep. 438; White v. Thielens, 106 Pa. 173; Delp v. Brewing Co., 123 Pa. 42, 15 Atl. 871; Howes v. Scott, 224 Pa. 7, 73 Atl. 186; In re Edmundsou's Est., 259 Pa. 429, 103 Atl. 277. But see denying an action BIymire v. Boistle, 6 Watts, 182; Ramsdale v.

cut,28 Delaware, 28a MasaachueettB,29 Michigan,30are committed

Horton, 3 Barr, 330; Campbell v. Lacock, 40 Pa. 448; Roberta™ v. Reed, 47 Pa. 116; Torreas p. Campbell, 74 Pa. 470; Kounts v. Holthouse, 85 Pa. 236, 237; Adams v. Kuefan, 119 Pa. 76, 13 Atl. 184; Freeman v. Pa. R. R. Co., 173 Pa. 274,33 Atl. 1034. See also Brown v. German-American Title A Trout Co., 174 Pa. 443, 456, 34 Atl. 335; Sweeney p. Houston, 243 Pa. 542, 90 Atl. 347, L. R. A. 1015 A. 779.

Rhode Island. Memman v. Social Mfg. Co., 12 R. I. 176; Wood v. Moriarty, 15 R, I. 518, 9 Atl. 427; Kehoe v. Patton, 23 R. I.360, 60 Atl 666.

South Carolina. See McBride v. Floyd, 2 Bailey, 209; Brown v. O'Brien, 1 Rich. 268, 44 Am. Dec. 254; Red-fearn p. Craig, 57 S. C. 534, 35 S. E. 1024.

Tennssee. Moore p. Stovall, 2 Lea, 643; Lookout Mountain R. Co. v. Houston, 1 Pickle, 224; O'Connor v. O'Connor, 88 Tenn. 76, 82, 12 S. W.

447,7 L. R. A. 33. But see Campbell p. Findley, 3 Humph. 330.

Texas. Spann v. Cochran, 63 Tex. 240; Bennett v. Rosenthal, 3 Willson Civ. Cas. 196; Hartley p. Conn, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 23 S. W. 382.

Utah. Brown d. Markland, 16 Utah, 360, 62 Pac. 697, 67 Am. St Rep. 629.

Vermont. See Arlington v. Hinds, 1 D. Chip. 431, 13 Am. Dec. 704; Pangborn p. Saxton, 11 Vt. 79, semble; Corey v. Powers, 18 Vt. 587; Rutland A B. R. Co. p. Cole, 24 Vt. 33; Chapman p. Mean, 66 Vt. 389; Congregational Soc. v. Flagg, 72 Vt. 248, 47 Atl. 782.

Washington. Don Yook p. Washington Mill Co., 16 Wash. 459, 47 Pac. 964; Union Machinery Ac. Co. p. Darnell, 89 Wash. 226, 154 Pac. 183.

Wisconsin. Kimball p. Noyes, 17 Wis. 696; Putney p. Farnham, 27 Wis. 187, 9 Am. Rep. 469; McDowell «. Laev, 35 Wis. 171; Bassett v. Hughes,

28 Morgan p. Randolph-Clowes Co., 73 Conn. 396, 47 Atl. 658, 51 L. R. A. 663. See also Baxter p. Camp, 71 Conn. 245, 41 Atl. 803, 42 L. R. A. 614, 71 Am. St. Rep. 169. These cases overrule earlier decisions, e. g., Crock-ker p. Higgina, 7 Conn. 342; Steene p. Aylesworth, 18 Conn. 244, 252; At-wood v. Burpee, 77 Conn. 42, 58 Atl. 237.

28a Merchants' Union Trust Co. p. New Philadelphia Graphite Co. (Del. CM, 83 Atl. 520.

29 Mellen v. Whipple, 1 Gray, 317; Flint v. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68, 96 Am. Deo. 691; Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37, 9 Am. Rep. 1; Rogers p. Union Stone Co., 130 Mass. 681, 39 Am. Rep. 478; Aigen p. Boston & Maine R. R., 132 Mass. 423; Morrill p. Lane, 136 Mass. 93; Borden p. Board-man, 157 Mass. 410, 32 N. E. 469;

White v. Mt. Pleasant Mills, 172 Mass. 462, 52 N. E. 632. See also oases of mortgage, infra, n. 43. Cf. Berry v. Friedman, 192 Mass. 131, 137, 78 N. E. 305; Forbes p. Thorpe, 209 Mass. 570, 95 N. E. 955, 959.

30 Pipp p. Reynolds, 20 Mich. 88; Turner p. McCarty, 22 Mich. 265; Halsted p. Francis, 31 Mich. 113; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. p. Davenport, 37 Mich. 609; Hicks p. McGarry, 38 Mich. 667; Hunt p. Strew, 39 Mich. 368, 371; Booth v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 43 Mich. 299, 5 N. W. 381; Ayres p. Gallup, 44 Mich. 13, 5 N. W. 1072; Edwards p. Clements, 81 Mich. 613,45 N. W. 1107; Minnock p. Eureka F. A M. Ins. Co., 90 Mich. 236, 51 N. W. 367; Bliss v. Hummer's Estate, 103 Mich. 181, 61 N. W. 263; Edwards p. Thoman, 187 Mich. 361, 153 N. W. 806.

against the doctrine. The United States Supreme Court,30a Maryland,31 New Hampshire,32 Pennsylvania,33 and Wyoming,34

43 Wis. 319; Hoik v. Bailey, 58 Wis. 434, 17 N. W. 322; Winninghoff v. Wittig, 64 Wis. 180, 24 N. W. 912; Johannes p. Phenix Ins. Co., 60 Wis.

50, 27 N. W. 414, 57 Am. Rep. 249; Jones p. Foster, 67 Wis. 296, 309, 30 N. W. 697; Ingram v Osborn, 70 Wis. 184,193, 36 N. W. 304; Nix p. Wiswoll, 84 Wis. 334, 54 N. W. 620; Fulmer p. Wightman, 87 Wis. 573, 58 N. W. 1106; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hamlin, 100 Wis. 17, 23, 75 N. W. 421; Lens v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 1ll Wis. 198, 86 N. W. 607; Concrete Steel Co. p. Illinois Surety Co., 163 Wis. 41, 157 N. W. 643.

30a National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, 26 L. Ed. 75. See also Constable p. National S. S. Co., 164 U. S.

51, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903; Johns p. Wilson, 180 U. S. 440, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 446, 45 L. Ed. 613; German Alliance Ins. Co. p. Home Water Supply Co., 226 U. S. 220, 33 Sup. Ct. 32, 57 L. Ed. 195, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1000; Nebraska Bank p. Nebraska. Hydraulic Co., 14 Fed. 763; Jesup p. Illinois Central R. Co., 43 Fed. 483, 493; Hennessy p. Bond, 77 Fed. 403, 23 C. C. A. 203; Mercantile Trust Co. p. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 94 Fed. 722; Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. p. Dancel, 119 Fed. Rep. 692, 66 C. C. A. 300; Silver King Coalition Mines Co. v. Silver King Consol. Min. Co., 204 Fed. 166, 122, C. C. A. 402. Cf. Guardian Trust Ac. Co. v. Fisher, 200 U. S. 57, 26 S. Ct. 186, 50 L. Ed. 367.

31 Hand v. Evans Marble Co., 88 Md. 226, 40 Atl. 899. But see Small p. Schaefer, 24 Md. 143; Seigman p. Hoffacker, 57 Md. 321.

32Warren v. Batchetder, 15 N. H. 129. Conf. Warren p. Batchelder, 10 N. H. 580; Lang p. Henry, 54 N. H. 57; Hunt v. New Hampshire Fire

Assoc., 68 N. H. 305, 308, 38 Atl. 146, 38 L. R. A. 514, 73 Am. St. Rep. 602. In the case last cited the court say, "The debt is in equity his debt." "If for technical reasons the law is powerless to enforce the duty, equity is subject to no such weakness."

33 Blymire v. Boistle, 6 Watts, 182, 31 Am. Dec. 458; Ramsdale p. Horton, 3 Barr, 330; Campbell p. Lacock, 40 Pa. 448; Robertson p. Reed, 47 Pa. 115; Torrens p. Campbell, 74 Pa. 470; Kounts p. Holthouse, 85 Pa. 235, 237; Adams p. Kuehn, 119 Pa. 76, 13 Atl. 184; Freeman P. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 173 Pa. 274, 33 Atl. 1034. But see Strohecker p. Grant, 10 S. & R. 237, 241; Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts, 104; Commercial Bank v. Wood, 7 W. & S. 89; Vincent p. Watson, 18 Pa. 90; Bellas p. Fagely, 19 Pa. 273; Townsend v. Long, 77 Pa. 143, 18 Am. Rep. 438; White v. Thielens, 106 Pa. 173; Delp p. Brewing Co., 123 Pa. 42, 15 Atl. 871; Howes v. Scott, 224 Pa. 7,73 Atl. 186; Sweeney p. Houston, 243 Pa. 642, 90 Atl. 347, L. R. A. 1915 A. 779. See also mortgage cases.

The rule in Pennyslvania seems to be that in general the creditor cannot sue, but "among the exceptions are cases where the promise to pay the debt of a third person rests upon the fact that money or property is placed in the hands of the promisor for that particular purpose, also where one buys out the stock of a tradesman and undertakes to take the place, fill the contracts, and pay the debts of his vendor." Adams p. Kuehn, 119 Pa. 76,86,13 Atl. 184. The first exception thus stated is that of a trust, but in its application of the rule the Pennsylvania court has gone beyond trusts properly so called.

34 McCarteney p. Wyoming Nat. Bank, 1 Wyo. 382.

at least, do not accept it completely and unequivocally. Several other jurisdictions in most cases, at least, hold the creditor's only right to be derivative and equitable, though in some of them code procedure has been substituted for a bill in equity in the enforcement of derivative rights.35