The measure of damages for breach of a contract to discharge an obligation of the promisee to a third person is the amount of the debt. Thus where a principal violates a promise to a surety to pay the creditor, the surety may recover (without paying the debt) from the principal as damages the full amount of the debt.17 And one who has assumed a mortgage if he fails to pay it at maturity, is liable to his promisee for its full amount.18 This doctrine has been criticized,19 and it is obvious that there is possible hardship to the defendant, for the creditor may never collect his claim from the plaintiff, but may collect it from the defendant, or, in the case of the mortgage, from security belonging to the defendant. It has been suggested in several cases to meet this difficulty, that the defendant may have an equity, that the money he pays to the plaintiff shall be applied in discharge of the debt:20 and it is to be observed that the defend-ant after suit has begun against him, may reduce damages in the action to a nominal amount by keeping his promise to pay the plaintiff's creditor. In the analogous case of breach of a covenant by a grantor of land to remove an existing encumbrance, the amount of the encumbrance, though not discharged, fixes the measure of damages.21 Here also in most jurisdictions of the United States the creditor might sue the promisor, and thereby subject him to double liability for the debt.

Md. 261; Slosson v. Beadle, 7 Johns. 72; Corbin v. Fairbanks, 56 Vt. .538 17 Loosemore v. Radford, 9 M & W. 667; Robinson v. Robinson, 24 L. T. 112; Banfield v. Marks, 56 Gal. 185; Lathrop v. Atwood, 21 Conn. 117; Gage v. Lewis, 68 111. 604; Devol v. Mcintosh, 23 Ind. 529; Helms v. Appleton, 43 Ind. App. 482, 85 N. E. 733, 86 N. E. 1023; Lee v. Burrell, 51 Mich. 132, 16 N. W. 309; Furnas v. Durgin, 119 Mass. 500, 508, 20 Am. Rep. 341; Locke v. Homer, 131 Mass. 93, 96, 41 Am.. Rep. 199; Alexander v. McPecky 189 Mass. 34, 75 N. E. 88; Ham v. Hill, 29 Mo. 275; Salmon Falls Bank v. Leyser, 116 Mo. 51, 22 S. W. 504; Fairfield o. Day, 71 N. H. 63, 51 Atl. 263; Spark-man v. Gove, 44 N.J. L. 252, 255-256; Port v. Jackson, 17 Johns. 239, 479; Berry v. Schaad, 50 N. Y. App. D. 132, 63 N. Y. S. 349; Klauck v. Federal

Ins. Co., 131 N. Y. App. D. 519, 115 N. Y. S. 1049; Beier v. Snitser, 167 N. Y. S. 303; Wilson v. Stilwell, 9 Oh. St. 467; Oriental Lumber Co. v. Blades Lumber Co., 103 Va. 730, 50 S. E. 270; Friend v. Ralston, 36 Wash. 422, 77 Pac. 794.

18 Foster v. Atwater, 42 Conn. 244; Malott v. Goff, 96 Ind. 496; Lowe v. Turpie, 147 Ind. 652, 44 N. E. 25, 47 N. E. 150, 37 L. R. A. 233; Stout v. Folger, 34 la. 71, 11 Am. Rep. 138; Baldwin o. Emery, 89 Me. 496, 36 Atl. 994; Furnas v. Durgin, 110 Mass. 500,20 Am. Rep. 341; Locke v. Homer, 131 Mass. 93, 41 Am. Rep. 109; Rice v. Sanders, 152 Mass. 108, 24 N. E. 1079, 8 L. R. A. 315, 23 Am. St. Rep. 804; Sparkman v. Gove, 44 N. J. L. 252. See also McAbee v. Cribbe, 194 Fa. 94, 44 Atl. 1066.

19 Sedgwick on Damages, Sec.790.