In discussing the practical application of the foregoing principles to particular states of fact, we find that the most usual type of this contract exists where B has conveyed property to A and in consideration thereof A promises to B to discharge a debt due from B to C. If B conveys property or pays money to A, and in consideration thereof A promises to discharge a debt due from B to C, C can maintain an action against A.1 One of the most common cases of this class exists where A, the grantee, assumes and agrees to pay a debt secured by a mortgage on the realty conveyed to him.2 So if a mortgagee retains veys his interest in a business to A, in consideration whereof A agrees to pay B's debts to C arising out of such business, C can maintain an action against A on such contract.8 So where one corporation bought the business of another, agreeing therefor to issue certificates of its own stock to the stockholders of the vendor corporation, a stockholder of the vendor may sue on such contract for specific performance.0 It is chiefly in connection with promises by a grantee to discharge mortgages and liens that the question has been raised whether such contract is enforceable if the grantor is not personally liable on such debt.10 If money is deposited by a lessee with a lessor to pay for certain improvements to be made upon the leased premises, the party making such improvements may maintain an action against the lessor.11 On the other hand, an agreement between bondholders who have formed a new company and bought the railroad under foreclosure proceedings to set aside a sum to pay small outstanding claims against the railroad, cannot be enforced by one who had constructed a station for the old company and had not been paid therefor.12 The payee of a bank check may sue on a contract between a bank and the vendee of stock to pay a check drawn on such bank by the vendee in favor of the vendor for the purchase price of such stock, where the bank receives the proceeds of the resale of such stock amounting to more than the check.13 So if a grantee agrees in the deed to himself, that a surety of his grantor's shall have a lien on the realty conveyed to indemnify him, such surety may enforce such deed.14

18 Freeman v. Ey., 32 Fla. 420; 13 So. 892.

19 St. Louis, etc., Ey. v. Neel, 56 Ark. 279; 19 S. W. 963.

20Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 498; 19 Am. St. Eep. 514; 10 L. E. A. 113; 25 N. E. 917.

21Pettibone v. E. B., 148 Mass. 411 ; 1 L. E. A. 787; 19 N. E. 337.

22 Anglo-American, etc., Association v. Campbell, 13 App. D. C. 581; 43 L. E. A. 622. For a similar ease see Burton v. Larkin. 36 Kan. 246; 59 Am. Eep. 541; 13 Pac. 398.

23 Fielders v. Ey., 68 N. J. L. 343; 96 Am. St. Eep. 552; 59 L. E. A. 455; 53 Atl. 404; 54 Atl. 822; reversing, 67 N. J. L. 76; 50 Atl. 533.

1 Barker v. Car Co., 124 Fed. 555; Blaekmore v. Parkes, 81 Fed. 899; 26 C. C. A. 670; Aultman v. Fletcher, 110 Ala. 452; 18 So. 215; North Alabama Development Co. v. Short (Ala.), 13 So. 385; Washer v. Development Co., 142 Cal. 702; 76 Pac. 654; Tevis v. Savage, 130 Cal. 411; 62 Pac. 611; Meyer v. Parsons, 129 Cal. 653; 62 Pac. 216; American Lead Pencil Co. v. Wolfe, 30 Fla. 360; 11 So. 488; Smith v. Caldwell, 6 Ida. 436; 55 Pac. 1065; Commercial National Bank v. Kirkwood, 172 111. 563; 50 N. E. 219; reversing, 68 111. App. 116; Scudder v. Carter, 43 111. App. 252; Bateman V. Butler, 124 Ind. 223; 24 N. E. 989; Oldenburg v. Baird, 26 Ind. App. 379; 58 N. E. 1073; William Deering v. Armstrong, 14 Ind. App. 44; 42 N. E. 372; Blakeley v. Adams, - Ky. - ; 68 S. W. 393; Mudd v. Carico, 104 Ky. 719; 47 S. W. 1080; Coffin v. Bradbury, 89 Me. 476; 36 Atl. 988; Watson v. Perrigo, 87 Me. 202; 32 Atl. 876; Lovejoy v. Howe, 55 Minn. 353; 57 N. W. 57; Maxfield v. Schwartz, 43 Minn. 221; 45 N. W. 429; Porter v. Woods, 138 Mo. 539; 39 S. W. 794; State v. Ry., 126 Mo. 328; 28 S. W. 1074; Salmon Falls Bank v. Leyser, 116 Mo. 51; 22 S. W. 504; Barnett v. Pratt, 37 Neb. 349; 55 N. W. 1050: Wills v. Bank, 23 Nev. 59; 42 Pac. 490; Thorp v. Coal Co., 48

N. Y. 253; Feldman v. McGuire, 34 Or. 309; 55 Pac. 872; Strong v. Kamm, 13 Or. 172; 9 Pac. 331; Sargent v. Johns, 206 Pa. St. 386; 55 Atl. 1051; Townsend v. Long, 77 Pa. St. 143; 18 Am. Rep. 438; Wood v. Moriarty, 15 R. I. 518; 9 Atl. 427; Urquhart v. Brayton, 12 R. I. 169; Mathonican v. Scott, 87 Tex. 396; 28 S. W. 1063; Morris v. Gaines, 82 Tex. 255; 17 S. W. 538; Keyes v. Allen, 65 Vt. 667; 27 Atl. 319; Moore v. Triplett, 96 Va. 603; 70 Am. St. Rep. 882; 32 S. E. 50; Skinker v. Armstrong, 86 Va. 1011; 11 S. E. 977; Dimmick v. Collins, 24 Wash. 78; 63 Pac. 1101; Gilmore v. Box Factory, 20 Wash. 703; 56 Pac. 934; Lessel v. Zillmer, 105 Wis. 334; 81 N. W. 403; Green v. Hadfield, 89 Wis. 138; 61 N. W. 310; Bassett v. Hughes, 43 Wis. 319.

2 Johns v. Wilson, 180 U. S. 440; Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610; Central Trust Co. v. Coal Co., 95 Fed. 391; North Alabama Development Co. v. Orman, 55 Fed. 18; 5 C. C. A. 22; Stuyvesant v. Western Mortgage Co., 22 Colo. 28; 43 Pac. 144; Mulvany v. Gross, 1 Colo. App. 112; 27 Pac. 878; Tuttle v. Arm-stead, 53 Conn. 175; 22 Atl. 677; Harts v. Emery, 184 111. 560; 56 N. E. 865; Webster v. Fleming, 178 111. 140; 52 N. E. 975; Fish v. Glover, 154 111. 86; 39 N. E. 1081; Stuckout of the loan made by him to the mortgagor enough to pay a prior mortgage, and promises mortgagor to pay such prior mortgage debt, the assignee of such debt may maintain an action against the second mortgagee on such promise.3 This rule is not confined to mortgages. If a grantee assumes and agrees to pay other debts of his grantor's which are liens on the property conveyed, such as vendor's liens,4 judgment liens,5 or legacies charged on the realty conveyed,6 and retains enough from the purchase price to pay such debts, the owner of such debts may maintain an action against the grantee. Furthermore, this principle is not limited to conveyances of realty. If B transfers personalty to A, in consideration of which A promises to pay B's debt to C, which is a lien on the personalty conveyed, C may enforce payment against A.7 So if B conman v. Boose, 147 Ind. 402; 46 N. E. 680; Lowe v. Hamilton, 132 Ind. 406; 31 N. E. 1117; Beeson v. Green, 103 la. 406; 72 N. W. 555; Marble Savings Bank v. Mesarvey, 101 Ia. 285; 70 N. W. 198; Stevenson v. Elliott, 53 Kan. 550; 36 Pac. 980; Cumberland National Bank v. St. Clair, 93 Me. 35; 44 Atl. 123; Flint v. Land Co., 89 Me. 420; 36 Atl. 634; Hine v. Myrick, 60 Minn. 518; 62 N. W. 1125; Pratt v. Conway, 148 Mo. 291; 71 Am. St. Rep. 602; 49 S. W. 1028; Kendall v. Garneau, 55 Neb. 403; 75 N. W. 852; Reynolds v. Dietz, 39 Neb. 180; 58 N. W. 89; Green v. Stone, 54 N. J. Eq. 387; 55 Am. St. Rep. 577; 34 Atl. 1099; reversing, 32 Atl. 706; Wager v. Link, 134 N. Y. 122; 31 N. E. 213; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Aitkin, 125 N. Y. 660; 26 N. E. 732; Moore v. Booker, 4 N. D. 543; 62 N. W. 607; Poe v. Dixon, 60 O. S. 133; 71 Am. St. Rep. 713; 54 N. E. 86, Society of Friends v. Haines, 47 O. S. 423; 25 N. E. 119; Thompson v. Thompson, 4 O. S. 333; Win-dle v. Hughes, 40 Or. 1; 65 Pac. 1058; Blood v. Levick Co., 177 Pa.

St. 606; 55 Am. St. Rep. 741; 35 Atl. 871; Merriman v. Moore, 90 Pa. St. 78; Mechanics' Savings Bank v. Goff, 13 R. I. 516; 43 Am. Rep. 42; O'Conner v. O'Conner, 88 Tenn. 76; 7 L. R. A. 33; 12 S. W. 447; Beitel v. Dobbin (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 299; Thompson v. Cheesman, 15 Utah 43; 48 Pac. 477; Carpenter v. Meachem, 111 Wis. 60; 86 N. W. 552; Morgan v. Lake View Co., 97 Wis. 275; 72 N. W. 872; Enos v. Sanger, 96 Wis. 150; 65 Am. St. Rep. 38; 70 N. W. 1069.

3 Porter v. Ourada, 51 Neb. 510; 71 N. W. 52.

4 Saunders v. McClintock, 46 Mo. App. 216; Johnson v. Elmen, 94 Tex. 168; 86 Am. St. Rep. 845; 52 L. R. A. 162; 59 S. W. 253; Strain v. Walton, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 624; 34 S. W. 293.

5 Emmitt v. Brophy, 42 O. S. 82; Kehoe v. Patton, 23 R. I. 360; 50 Atl. 655.

6 Bird v. Stout, 40 W. Va. 43; 20 S. E. 852.

7 Kollock v. Parcher, 52 Wis. 393; 9 N. W. 67.

8 Rothermell v. Coal Co., 79 I11. App. 667; Dickson v. Conde, 148 Ind. 279; 46 N. E. 998; Lovejoy v. Howe, 55 Minn. 353; 57 N. W. 57; Schufeldt v. Smith, 139 Mo. 367; 40 S. W. 887; Conner v. Bramble, 6 Ohio N. P. 195; Lenz v. Ey., 1ll Wis. 198; 86 N. W. 607; J. & H. Clasgens Co. v. Silber, 93 Wis. 579; 67 N. W. 1122.

9 Fletcher v. Telephone Co., 55 N. J. Eq., 47; 35 Atl. 903.

10 For a discussion of this subject see Sec. 1311.

11 Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Gerradi, 166 Mo. 142; 65 S. W. 1035.

12 Mayer v. R. R., 132 Ind. 88; 31 N. E. 567. (Some stress was here laid on the fact that such sum might have been already expended in paying off prior claims.)

13 Hawley v. Bank, 97 la. 187; 66 N. W. 152.

14 Blakeley v. Adams, - Ky. - ; 68 S. W. 393.