The courts in which C is allowed to enforce the promise against A do so only when A's promise is primarily intended to benefit C. If the benefit to C is merely incidental, C cannot maintain an action against A.1 Some courts go further and hold that C can sue only when he is the sole beneficiary.2 This principle has been otherwise expressed by saying that the third person may sue only when a release from him would discharge the promisor.3

1 Constable v. Steamship Co.. 154 U. S. 51; National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123; American, etc., Bank v. Ry., 76 Fed. 130; Sayward v. Dexter, etc., Co., 72 Fed. 758; 19 C. C. A. 176; Austin v. Seligman, 18 Fed. 519; Thomas Mfg. Co. v. Prather. 65 Ark. 27; 44 S. W. 218; Chung Kee v. Davidson, 73 Cal. 522; 15 Pac. 100; Buckley v. Gray, 110 Cal. 339; 52 Am. St. Rep. 88, 31 L. R. A. 862; 42 Pac. 900; Treat v. Stanton. 14 Conn. 445; 36 Am. Dec. 492; Freeman v. Ry., 32 Fla. 420; 13 So. 892; Wright v. Terry. 23 Fla. 160; 2 So. 6; Crandall v. Payne, 154 111. 627; 39 N. E. 601; affirming. 54 111. App. 644; Reynolds v. Ry., 143 Ind. 579; 40 N. E. 410: Farlow v. Kemp, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 544; German State Bank v. Northwestern, etc., Co., 104 la. 717; 74 N. W. 685; Burton v. Larkin, 36 Kan. 246; 59 Am. Rep. 541; 13 Pac. 398; Gibson v. Johnson (Ky.), 65 S. W. 116; Greenwood v. Sheldon. 31 Minn. 254; 17 N. W. 473; Frerk-ing v. Thomas, 64 Neb. 193; 89 N. W. 1005; Styles v. F. R. Long Co.. 67 N. J. L. 413; 51 Atl. 710; affirmed in Styles v. F. R. Long Co., - N. J. L. - ; 57 Atl. 448; Berry Harvester Co. v. Machine Co., 152 N. Y. 540; 46 N. E. 952; Eaton v. Waterworks Co., 37 Neb. 546; 40 Am. St. Rep. 510; 21 L. R. A. 653; 56 N. W. 201; Durnherr v. Rau. 135 N. Y. 219; 32 N. E. 49; Loril-lard v. Clyde. 122 N Y. 498; 19

Am. St. Rep. 514; 10 L. R. A. 113; 25 N. E. 917; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280; 25 Am. Rep. 195; Simson v. Brown. 68 N. Y. 355; Par-lin v. Hall. 2 N. D. 473; 52 N. W. 405; Vought v. R. R.. 58 O. S. 123; 50 N. E. 442; Brower, etc.. Lumber Co. v. Miller. 28 Or. 565; 52 Am. St. Rep. 807; 43 Pac. 659; Washburn v. Investment Co.. 26 Or. 436: 38 Pac. 620; 36 Pac. 533; Parker v. Jeffery, 26 Or. 186: 37 Pac. 712; Blymire v. Boistle. 6 Watts (Pa.) 182; 31 Am. Dec. 458; Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495; 50 Pac. 623; Electric Applianc? Co. v. Guaranty Co.. 110 Wis. 434; 53 L. R. A. 609; 85 N. W. 648; Campbell v. Carnagie, 98 Wis. 99; 73 N. W. 572. "To entitle him to an action the contract must have been made for his benefit. He must be the party intended to be benefited." Garnsey v. Rogers. 47 N. Y. 233, 240: 7 Am. Rep. 440; quoted in Montgomery v. Rief. 15 Utah, 495, 501; 50 Pac. 623. The " benefit must be the direct result of performance." Durnherr v. Rau, 135 N. Y. 219; 32 N. E. 49.

2 The rule allowing third persons to sue is " confined to cases where the person for whose benefit the promise is made has the sole exclusive interest in its performance." German State Bank v. Light Co., 104 Ia. 717. 72.3; 74 N. W. 685; quoted in Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Ot-tumwa. 112 la. 300; 51 L. R. A. 763; 83 N. W. 1074; Messenger v.