2 Kansas. Morris v. Mix, 4 Kan App. 654, 46 Pac. 58.

Minnesota. Union Railway Storage Co. v. McDermott, 53 Miivn. 407, 55 N. W. 600; Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446, 39 Am. St. Rep. 618, 25 L. R. A. 257, 55 N. W. 604; Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 492, 116 N. W. 925.

New Jersey. Norwood v. De Hart, 30 N. J. Eq. 412.

New York. Trotter v. Hughes, 12 N. Y. 74, 62 Am. Pec. 137; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 195; Embler v. Ins. Co., 158 N. Y. 431. 44 L. R. A. 512. 53 N. E. 212.

Virginia. 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 Georgia State Savings Association v. Dearing, 128 Ark. 149, 193 S. W.

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

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 author ity of Urquhart v. Brayton, 12 R. I. 169, and Wood v. Moriarty, 15 R. I. 518, 9 Atl. 427, saying: "We are not prepared to extend the authority of the cases mentioned to a case where no debt is assumed.")

6 Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 492, 116 N. W. 925.

7 General Electric Co. v. Jordan, 137 Minn. 107, 162 N. W. 1061.

If it is necessary, in order to hold the grantee personally liable upon his covenant to assume and pay a certain obligation, that his grantor should be personally liable, this requirement is met if one or more of a number of grantors are liable, although other grantors are not liable.10

Where this view that the promisee must be under some obligation to the beneficiary prevails, the courts do not, of course, make any attempt to give effect to the intention of the parties, or to enforce the terms of a valid contract. In many of the cases, however, the same result would be reached by applying the other rule, which does not require any obligation as between the promisee and the beneficiary, since in many of these cases the benefit was merely incidental, and was not the primary intention of the parties. Even where this view is expressed, an exception is often made in cases in which B intends to make a gift to C. If B furnishes consideration to A for A's promise to perform for the benefit of 0, the fact that B intends such contract as a means of making a gift to 0, does not prevent C from enforcing such contract.11

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.12 If B enters into such contract with A, in order that B may make a gift to C, full effect is given, in most jurisdictions, to the intention of the parties, and C may recover from A, although without such contract C would have had no legal claim against A or B.13 A promise by A, who is C's father, to his prospective son-in-law, B, by which, in consideration of the marriage, A agrees to pay a certain sum of money to C, is a contract which C may enforce.14 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.15

8 Hawkins v. Central of Georgia Ry., 119 Ga. 159, 40 S. E. 82; Ogles v. Nashville. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 130 Ga. 430. 124 Am. St. Rep. 175, 60 S. E. 1048.

9 Ogles v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 130 Ga. 430, 124 Am. St. Rep. 175, 60 S. E. 1048.

10 Washer v. Independent Mining & Development Co., 142 Cal. 702, 76 Pac. 654.

11 Rogers v. Galloway Female College, 64 Ark. 627, 39 L. R. A. 636, 44

S. W. 454; Daily v. Minnick, 117 Ia. 563. 60 L. R. A. 840, 91 N. W. 913; Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Ia. 650, 109 N. W. 186; In re Edmundson, 250 Pa. St. 429. 2 A. L. R. 1150, 103 Atl. 277.

12 Georgia. Crawford v. Wilson, 139 Ga. 654, 44 L. R. A. (N.S.) 773, 78 S. E. 30.

Illinois. Dean v. Walker, 107 111. 540, 47 Am. Rep. 467; Bay v. Williams, 112 111. 91, 54 Am. Rep. 209, 1 N. E. 340.

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.16 This view was in effect though not in form overruled.17 In turn, the views expressed in the last cases were overruled.18 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.19 In turn, this last case was overruled and such obligation was held unnecessary.20

Indiana. McCoy v. McCoy, 32 Ind. App. 38, 102 Am. St. Rep. 223, 69 N. E. 193.

Iowa. Marble Savings Bank v. Mesarvey, 101 Ia. 285, 70 N. W. 198.

Kentucky. Bryant v. Jones, 183 Ky. 298, 209 S. W. 30.

Maine. Androscoggin County Savings Bank v. Tracy, 115 Me. 433, 99 Atl. 257.

Missouri. Crone v. Stinde, 156 Mo. 262, 55 S. W. 863, 56 S. W. 907.

New York. Buchanan v. Tilden, 158 X. Y. 109, 70 Am. St. Rep. 454, 44 L. R. A. 170, 52 X. E. 724 (moral duty of promisee to provide for his wife, who was the beneficiary, regarded as consideration); Seaver v. Ranson, 224 N. Y. 233, 2 A. L. R. 1187, 120 X. E. 639 (love and affection as consideration between the promisee and the beneficiary).

North Dakota. American Soda Fountain Co. v. Hogue, 17 N. D. 375, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1113, 116 N. W. 339; McDonald v. Finseth, 32 N. D. 400. 155 N. W. 863.

Oregon. Stevens v. Myers. - Or. - , 2 A. L. R. 1155, 177 Pac. 37.

Utah. Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah 360, 67 Am. St. Rep. 629, 52 Pac. 597; Smith v. Bowman, 32 Utah 33, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 889, 88 Pac. 687.

See obiter, apparently contra, in Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495, 50

Pac. 623; Coleman v.. Whitney, 62 Vt. 123, 9 L. R. A. 517, 20 Atl. 322.

Virginia. Casaelman's Administratrix v. Gordon, 118 Va. 553. 88 S. E. 58.

Wisconsin. Tweeddale v. Tweeddale, 116 Wis. 517, 96 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 61 L. R. A. 509, 93 N. W. 440; Smith v. Pfhiger, 126 Wis. 253, 110 Am. St. Rep. 911, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 783, 105 X. W. 476.

13 New York. De Cicco v. Schweizer, 221 X. Y. 431, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 816,

117 X. E. 807; Seaver v. Ransom, 224 X. Y. 233, 2 A. L. R. 1187, 120 X. E. 639 (beneficiary was niece of promisee).

North Carolina. Faust v. Faust, 144 X. Car. 383, 57 S. E. 22.

Oregon. Stevens v. Myers, - Or. - , 2 A. L. R. 1155, 177 Pac. 37.

Pennsylvania. Edmundson's Estate, 259 Pa St. 429, 103 Atl. 277.

West Virginia. Butta v. Butts, 81 W. Va. 55, 94 S. E. 360.

Wisconsin. Tweeddale v. Tweeddale, 116 Wis. 517, 90 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 61 L. R. A. 509, 93 X. W. 440.

14 De Cicco v. Schweizer, 221 N. Y. 431, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 816, 117 N; E. 807.

15 Colorado. Hastings v. Pringle, 37 Colo. 86, 86 Pac. 93.

Illinois. Dean v. Walker, 107 111. 540, 47 Am. Rep. 467.

Iowa. Marble Savings Pank v. Mesarvey, 101 Ia. 285, 70 X. W. 198.