American courts are divided upon this question. The earlier American cases followed the early English rule and allowed recovery if C was closely related to B.1 The weight of modern authority holds that C may recover from A if the promise is upon consideration, is not under seal, and is made primarily for O's benefit.2 The doctrine that C can sue has led to many Danpractical difficulties, and while recognized and well established can hardly he said to he favored. Even the courts that allow C to sue, show "no disposition to extend the doctrine relating to third parties to new and doubtful cases."3

1 Dutton v. Poole, 1 Vent. 318; affirmed, T. Raym. 302.

2 Price v. Easton, 4 B. & Ad. 433.

1 Felton v. Dickinson, 10 Mass. 287.

2Hendrick v. Lindsay, 93 U. S. 143; Buckley v. Gray, 110 Cal. 339; 52 Am. St. Rep. 88; 31 L. R. A. 862; 42 Pac. 900; Wright v. Terry, 23 Fla. 160; 2 So. 6; Lawrence v. Oglesby, 178 111. 122; 52 N. E. 945; Warder, etc., Co. v. Cummins. 74 111. App. 650; Ransdel v. Moore,

153 Ind. 393; 53 L. R. A. 753; 53 N. E. 767; Warren v. Farmer, 100 Ind. 593; Rodenbarger v. Bram-blett, 78 Ind. 213; Tinkler v. Swaynie, 71 Ind. 562; Howell v. Hough, 46 Kan. 152; 26 Pac. 436; Clay v. Woodrum, 45 Kan. 116; 25 Pac. 619; West v. Telegraph Co., 39 Kan. 93; 7 Am. St. Rep. 530; 17 Pac. 807; Holderman v. Tedford, 7 Kan. App. 657; 53 Pac. 887; Sehmidtz v. Ry., 101 Ky. 441; 38 L. R. A. 809; 41 S. W. 1015;