It is, then, a peculiarity in regard to the application of such a promise to the debt of the promisee, that the promise is an asset of which not every creditor can take advantage. As to most property, the creditor who first attaches or files a bill acquires whatever rights his debtor has; but as stated in the previous section certainly so long as a promise to pay A's debt to B is not broken, it cannot be made available by any creditor except B, since the promisor cannot be required to do anything other than what he promised. On the other hand, it seems clear that if B should sue A and collect his claim out of A's general assets, the liability which would arise on the part of the promisor to A because of the promisor's failure to pay the debt could be made available by any creditor. It may also be urged that after breach of his contract by the promisor even though B has not been paid, a right of action for damages arises in favor of the promisee of which he could avail himself for his own advantage;45 and, of which therefore, any creditor should be able to avail himself.46
44 In Vermont garnishment by the creditor specified in the promise is allowed. Corey- v. Powers, 18 Vt. 687; Chapman v. Mean, 56 Vt. 386. See also Henry ». Murphy, 54 Ala. 246.
45 See infra, Sec.Sec. 390, 392.
46 Compare In re Richardson,  2 K. B. 70S, in which on the bankruptcy of a trustee, the question arose whether the trustee's right to be indemnified from liability on a contract made by him in pursuance of the trust was to be treated as assets for the general creditors or could only be applied for the benefit of the particular creditor with whom the trustee's contract had been made. The court took the latter view, but distinguislied the equi-