Consideration is as essential in contracts of this type as in others,1 and as in others it may be either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. Carrying this principle farther and applying it to contracts of this type, C ia, in many jurisdictions, allowed to sue even though the consideration for A's promise does not move from C in whole or in part.2

257, 265; 15 Am. St. Rep. 508; 6 L. R. A. 610; 22 X. E. 756.

18 Bay v. Williams, 112 111. 91; 54 Am. Rep. 209; Gilbert v. Sanderson, 56 la. 349; 41 Am. Rep. 103; 2 N. W. 293; Gold v. Ogden, 61 Minn. 88; 63 N. W. 266; Gifford v. Corrigan. 117 N. Y. 257; 15 Am. St. Rep. 508; 6 L. R. A. 610; 22 N. E. 756. Contra, that the promisor and promisee can rescind without reference to any rights of third parties. Biddel v. Brizzolara. 64 Cal. 354; 30 Pac. 609; Laing v. Byrne, 34 N. J. Eq. 52.

19 Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N. Y. 257; 15 Am. St. Rep. 508; 6 L. R. A. 610; 22 N. E. 756.

20 Ellis v. Harrison, 104 Mo. 270; 16 S. W. 198; Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 N. Y. 30; 39 Am. Rep. 617.

21 Clay v. Woodrum. 45 Kan. 116; 25 Pac. 619; Osborne v. Cabell, 77 Va. 462.

22 Bell v. Mendenhall. 71 Minn. 331; 73 N. W. 1086.

23 Curry v. Homer. 62 O. S. 233; 56 N. E. 870.

1 McArthur v. Dryden, 6 N. D. 438; 71 N. W. 125.