A minority of American courts have held that a contract between two persons for the benefit of a third confers no right of action upon such third person as against the promisor.1 In states which enforce this principle, a contract by an applicant for a loan to pay the lender's counsel " his charges for the examination of the title,"2 or a contract on consideration whereby A promises B not to sue C on a note,3 cannot be enforced by such third person. A promise by A who owes B money on a contract of employment,4 or as income due him from an estate,5 to pay to C the amount thus owing by A to B, or a promise by A, a husband, to B, his wife, to pay C, her son, money loaned by B to A,6 can none of them be enforced by C. A promise by A to whom B has paid funds under a contract with him to pay to C out of such funds a debt due him from B, cannot be enforced by C.7 A promise by a prospective devisee to testator, in consideration of the devise, to pay a certain sum of money monthly to one to whom such devise had been given by a previous "will cannot be enforced by such third person.8 Where property is transferred by a partnership to a corporation in consideration of a promise by the corporation to pay the partnership debts, creditors of the partnership cannot enforce such contract,9 and where B transferred a note to A under A's promise to pay B's debt to C,10 C cannot enforce such contract against A. So it has been held that a grantee who promises to pay grantor's debts is liable to the grantor's creditors only in case of express agreement among the three parties.11

3 Hill v. Ry. Co., 82 Mo. App. 188.

4 Wolf v. Tract Society, 164 N. Y. 30; '51 L. R. A. 241; 58 N. E. 31.

5 State v. Ry., 125 Mo. 596; 28 S. W. 1074.

6 Five v. Electric Co., 97 Me. 241; 94 Am. St. Rep. 500; 54 Atl. 395; Bain v. Atkins, 181 Mass. 240; 92 Am. St. Rep. 411; 57 L. R. A. 791; 63 X. E. 414; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Moses, 63 N. J. Eq. 260; 92 Am. St. Rep. 663; 49 Atl. 720.

7Embler v. Ins. Co., 158 N. Y. 431; 44 L. R. A. 512; 53 N. E. 212.

8 Fenton v. Casualty Co., 36 Or. 283; 48 L. R. A. 770; 56 Pac. 1096.

See to the same effect, Ross v. Ins. Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 41; 38 Atl. 22.

1 Morgan v. Randolph & Clowes Co., 73 Conn. 396; 51 L. R. A. 653; 47 Atl. 658; Lamkin v. Mfg. Co., 72 Conn. 57; 44 L. R. A. 786; 43 Atl. 593, 1042; Baxter v. Camp. 71 Conn. 245; 71 Am. St. Rep. 169; 42 L. R. A. 514; 41 Atl. 803; Meech v. Ensign. 49 Conn. 191; 44 Am. Rep. 225; Clapp v. Lawton, 31 Conn. 95; Treat v. Stanton, 14 Conn. 445; Williamson v. McGrath. 180 Mass. 55: 61 N. E. 636; De La Vergne Refrigerating Machine Co. v. Brewing Co., 175 Mass. 419; 56 N. E. 584; Borden v. Boardman. 157 Mass.

410; 32 X. E. 469; Saunders v. Saunders, 154 Mass. 337; 28 N. E. 270; Marsten v. Bigelow, 150 Mass. 45; 5 L. R. A. 43; 22 X. E. 71; Eogers v. Stone Co., 130 Mass. 581; 39 Am. Rep. 478; Linnemann v. Moross, 98 Mich. 178; 39 Am. St. Rep. 528; 57 X. W. 103; Wheeler v. Stewart, 94 Mich. 445; 54 X. W. 172; Edwards v. Clement. 81 Mich. 513; 45 X. W. 1107. " It must now be regarded as the settled general rule in this state that where A simply agrees with B upon a valid consideration to assume and pay B's debts and save B harmless therefrom, C, a creditor of B, cannot maintain an action at law against A for his refusal to pay the debt due from B to C." Morgan v. Clowes Co., 73 Conn. 396, 397; 51 L. R. A. 653; 47 Atl. 658. In Coffey v. Shuler, 112 X. C. 622; 16 S. E. 911, it was said that a promise for the benefit of a third person cannot be enforced by such third person, citing Morehead v. Wriston, 73 X. C. 398; 21 Am. Rep. 470. But Coffey v. Shuler is a ease in which there was no consideration for the promise. The principle that a third person may enforce the contract is recognized in Gorrell v. Water Supply Co., 124 X. C. 328; 70 Am. St. Rep. 598; 46 L. R. A. 513; 32 S. E. 720; Haun v. Burrell, 119 X. C. 544; 26 S. E. Ill; Sams v. Price, 119 X. C. 572; 26 S. E. 170.

2 Williamson v. McGrath, 180-Mass. 55; 61 X. E. 636.

3 Marsten v. Bigelow, 150 Mass. 45; 5 L. R. A. 43; 22 X. E. 71. Citing Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37; 9 Am. Rep. 1.

4 Wheeler v. Stewart, 94 Mich. 445; 54 X. W. 172.

5 Saunders v. Saunders, 154 Mass. 337; 28 X. E. 270. The promise was made to the husband and the wife. Substantially the same conclusion has been reached in states which usually allow a third person to enforce a contract for his benefit. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 161 X. Y. 554; 56 X. E. 79.

6 Baxter v. Camp, 71 Conn. 245; 71 Am. St. Rep. 169; 42 L. R. A. 514; 41 Atl. 803.

7 Borden v. Boardman, 157 Mass. 410; 32 N. E. 469.