A question on which there is conflict of authority in the jurisdictions which recognize the right of a third party to sue on a contract for his benefit, is whether it is necessary that the promisee be under some legal or equitable obligation to the third person for whose benefit the contract is made. In some jurisdictions it is said that the third person can enforce the contract only when one of the parties to the contract,1 as the promisee,2 is under either a legal or equitable obligation to such third person, for the purpose of discharging which obligation the promise is made. Thus where a lessee was making improvements and the contractor gave bond to the lessee for the use of the owner and all persons who may do work on such improvements, conditioned to be void if all just claims were paid, it was held that as the lessee could not be affected by mechanics' liens he had no legal interest in the payment of the claims of material men, and hence material men could not sue on such bond.3 So if a grantee assumes and agrees to pay a lien on the realty conveyed as part of the purchase price, the courts in which this doctrine obtains hold that such grantee is not liable on this covenant to the mortgagee unless the grantor was personally liable to the debts secured by the lien. If the debt is one for which the grantor is not personally liable, the grantee is not personally liable on such covenant.4 So where A had, in consideration of a conveyance from X, assumed and agreed to pay B's note to C, given for love and affection, he was held not liable to C.5 Un-

2 Cobb v. Heron, 180 111. 49; 54 N. E. 189; Ferris v. Brewing Co., 155 Ind. 539; 52 L. R. A. 305; 58 N. E. 701; Ransdel v. Moore, 153 Ind. 393; 53 L. R. A. 753; 53 N. E. 767; Copeland v. Summers, 138 Ind. 219; 35 N. E. 514; 37 N. E. 971; Munday v. Munday (Ky.), 52 S. W. 166; Glencoe, etc., Co. v. Wind, 86 Mo. App. 163; Rohman v. Gaiser, 53 Neb. 474; 73 N. W. 923; Morrill v. Skinner, 57 Neb. 164; 77 N. W. 375; Meyer v. Sbamp, 51 Neb. 424; 71 N. W. 57; Hare v. Murphy, 45 Neb. 809; 29 L. R. A. 851; 60 N. W. 211; Kaufman v. Bank, 31 Neb. 661; 48 N. W. 738; Whitehead v. Burgess, 61 N. J. L. 75; 38 Atl. 802; Buchanan v. Tilden, 158 N. Y. 109; 70 Am. St. Ren. 454; 44 L. R. A. 170; 52 N. E. 724; Brewer v. Maurer. 38 O. S. 543; 43 Am. Rep. 436; Merriman v.

Moore, 90 Pa. St. 78; Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah 360; 67 Am. St. Rep. 629; 52 Pac. 597; Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495; 50 Pac. 623; McKay v. Ward, 20 Utah 149; 46 L. R. A. 623; 57 Pac. 1024; Enos v. Sanger, 96 Wis. 150; 65 Am. St. Rep. 38; 37 L. R. A. 862; 70 N. W. 1069; Grant v. Lock Co., 77 Wis. 72; 45 N. W. 951.

1 Washer v. Development Co., 142 Cal. 702; 76 Pac. 654; Harts v. Emery, 184 111. 560; 56 N. E. 865; Green v. Houston, 22 Kan. 35; Crawford v. Edwards, 33 Mich. 354; Alt v. Banholzer, 36 Minn. 57; 29 N. W. 674.

2 Scanlan v. Grimmer, 71 Minn. . 351; 70 Am. St. Rep. 326; 74 N. W. 146.

3 Parkinson v. Sherman, 74 N. Y. 88; 30 Am. Rep. 268.

4 See Sec. 311.

1 Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Ottumwa, 112 la. 300; 51 L. R. A. 763; 83 N. W. 1074; McDonald v. Bank, 25 Mont. 456; 65 Pac. 896; Edmund-son v. Penny, 1 Pa. St. 3M; 44 Am. Dec. 137.

2 Morris v. Mix, 4 Kan App. 654; 46 Pac. 58; Union Railway Storage Co. v. McDermott, 53 Minn. 407; 55 N. W. 606; Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446; 39 Am. St. Rep. 618; 25 L. R. A. 257; 55 N W. 604; Norwood v. De Hart, 30 N. J. Eq. 412; Embler v. Ins. Co., 158 N. Y. 431; 44 L. R. A. 512; 53 N. E. 212; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280; 25 Am. Rep. 195; Trotter v. Hughes, 12 N. Y. 74; 62 Am. Dec. 137; Osborne v. Cabell, 77 Va. 462.

3 Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446;

39 Am. St. Rep. 618; 25 L. R. A. 257; 55 N. W. 604.

4 Ward v. De Oca, 120 Cal. 102; 52 Pac. 130; New England Trust Co. v. Nash, 5 Kan. App. 739; 46 Pac. 987; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280; 25 Am. Rep. 195; Trotter v. Hughes, 12 N. Y. 74; 62 Am. Dec. 137.

5 Wilbur v. Wilbur, 17 R. I. 295; 21 Atl. 497. (B was the father of A and X. C was X's son. The court was urged to hold A liable, on the authority of Urquhart v. Bray-ton, 12 R. I. 169, and Wood v. Mo-riarty, 15 R. I. 518; 9 Atl. 427, saying: "We are not prepared to extend the authority of the cases mentioned to a case where nc debt is assumed.") der the Georgia statute if the consideration moves from B to A and A's promise is to B for the benefit of X, X cannot sue, but if the promise is directly to X, he can sue.6

Other authorities hold that if a sufficient consideration exists between the promisor and the promisee, the third person for whose benefit the contract is made may sue thereon whether either party to the contract was under any obligation to him or not.7 Where this last view is entertained a mortgagee can enforce the mortgage debt against the grantee personally, even if the grantor is not personally liable upon such debt.8

The same court has often entertained different views at different times with reference to the necessity of personal liability of the promisee to enable the third person to enforce the contract as against the promisor. Thus in Missouri the right of a mortgagee to sue a grantee who assumed the mortgage debt was at first recognized.9 This view was in effect though not in form overruled.10 In turn the views expressed in the last cases were overruled.11 Then it was held that the third person could sue only when the promisee was under some legal or equitable obligation to him, which the promise was to discharge.12 In turn this last case was overruled and such obligation was held unnecessary.13

6 Hawkins v. Central of Georgia Ry., 119 Ga. 159; 46 S. E. 82. 7 Bay v. Williams, 112 111. 91;

54 Am. Rep. 209; 1 N. E. 340; Dean v. Walker, 107 111. 540; 47 Am. Rep. 467; Marble Savings Bank v. Mesarvey, 101 la. 285; 70 N. W. 198; Crone v. Stinde, 156 Mo. 262;

55 S. W. 863; 56 S. W. 907.

8 Dean v. Walker, 107 111. 540; 47 Am. Rep. 467; Marble Savings Bank v. Mesarvey, 101 la. 285; 70 N. W. 198; Crone v. Stinde, 156 Mo. 262; 55 S. W. 863; 56 S. W. 907; Hare v. Murphy, 45 Neb. 809; 29 L. R. A. 851; 64 N. W. 211.

9 Heim v. Vogel. 09 Mo. 529; Rogers v. Gosnell, 58 Mo. 589.

10 Howsmon v Water Co.. 119

Mo. 304; 41 Am. St. Rep. 654; 23 L. R. A. 146; 24 S. W. 784; Kansas City, etc., Co. v. Thompson, 120 Mo. 218; 25 S. W. 522.

11 St. Louis v. Von Phul, 133 Mo. 561; 54 Am. St. Hep. 695; 34 S. W. 843.

12 Hicks v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 495; 66 Am. St. Rep. 431; 46 S. W. 432.

13 " The consideration passing between the two contracting parties by which one of them promises to pay to a third is just as available as if be himself had paid the consideration." Crone v. Stinde. 156 Mo. 262, 269; 55 S. W. 863; 56 S. W. 907.