10 D. Ghirardelli Co. v. Hunsicker, 164 Cal. 335, 128 Pac. 1041.

11 Whitney v. Ins. Co. (Cal.), 56 Pac. 50; Bartlett v. Ins. Co., 77 Ia. 155, 41 N. W. 601; Barnes v. Ins. Co., 56 Minn. 38, 45 Am. St. Rep. 438, 5? N. W. 314; Ruohs v. Traders' Fire Ins. Co., 1ll Tenn. 405, 102 Am. St. Rep. 790, 78 S. W. 85.

12Devol v. Mcintosh, 23 Ind. 529; Tinker v. Swaynie, 71 Ind. 562; Roden-barger v. Bramblett, 78 Ind. 213; Warren v Farmer, 100 Ind. 593; Ferris v. Brewing Co., 155 Ind. 539, 52 L. R. A.

305, 48 N. E. 701 [citing, Ransdel v. Moore, 153 Ind. 393, 405, 53 L. R. A. 753, 63 N. E. 767].

13 Lake Erie, etc., Ry. v. Power, 15 Ind. App. 179, 43 N. E. 959.

14 Hill v. Mining Co., 124 Mo. 153, 46 Am. St. Rep. 429, 25 S. W. 926, 32 S. W. 111.

15 Caldwell v. Ryan, 173 Ky. 233, 190 S. W. 1078.

16Withers v. Poe, 167 N. Car. 372, 83 S. E. 614.

17 Stewart v. Rogers, 71 Kan. 53, 80 Pac. 58.

18 Painter v. Kaiser, 27 Nev. 421, 103 Am. St. Rep. 772, 65 L. R. A. 672, 76 Pac. 747.

19 Tyler v. Mayre, 95 Cal. 160, 27 Pac. 160, 30 Pac. 196.

20 Buchanan v. Tilden, 158 N. Y. 109, 70 Am. St. Rep. 454, 44 L. R. A. 170, 52 N. E. 724. In this case there were peculiar facts on which the court laid great stress. B was X's heir. C was the adopted daughter of X's brother. The court said: "Plaintiff, in equity and good conscience, as an adopted child of Moses Y. Tilden, was entitled to come in and share with the other heirs and next of kin the large fund that had been freed from the provisions of the will. When this equitable right or interest is coupled with the relation of husband and wife, we have presented a situation that affords ample consideration for the contract sued upon - a situation that distinguishes this action from any of the cases where the party suing upon a promise rests exclusively upon a debt of duty owed him by the promisee. Another general feature of this case, to which we think the court below has failed bo give due prominence, is the extent of the legal and moral obligation resting upon a husband to support and provide for his wife."

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

22 Murphy v. Whitney, 140 N. Y. 541, 24 L. R. A. 123, 35 N. E. 930. (Such child can enforce such contract.)

23 Hence C can sue the insurance company. West Coast Lumber Co. v. Ins. Co., 98 Cal. 502, 33 Pac. 258; Cone v. Ins. Co., 60 N. Y. 619.

24 Benge v. Hiatt, 82 Ky. 666, 56 Am. Rep. 912.

25 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hamlin, 100 Wis. 17, 75 N. W. 421. So a rent bond taken by a court for the rent of land not under its control may be enforced by the person establishing the ownership of such land, as upon a ratification of the act of an unauthorized agent. Parish v. Ross. 98 Ky. 318. 25 S. W. 266.

Under a contract between an express company and an employe, whereby he agrees to exempt the express company from certain forms of liability, and the contract provides that this provision shall inure to the benefit of the railroad company, the railroad may use such provision as a defense, even if it had no knowledge thereof before action was brought to enforce such liability.26 A conveyance by B to Y, is a consideration for a promise by A, who is Y's father, to pay a sum of money to C, who is B's child, may be enforced by C.27

If A, a property owner, enters into a contract with B, whereby B agrees to construct a building upon A's realty, and A agrees to pay for the labor and material employed in the construction of such building, such contract is regarded as intended for the benefit of those who furnish labor or material in the performance of such contract, and such persons may enforce such promise against A.28 The intention to benefit the subcontractor or materialman is especially clear where A agrees to retain from the contract price an amount sufficient to pay the claims of the subcontractors or materialmen.29 A contract by A, who publishes the reports of a court, whereby he agrees to furnish such reports to book dealers at specified prices, is intended for the benefit of the book dealers, and such contract may be enforced by them.30 A contract between B, who is a member of the family of the decedent, and an undertaker, A, by which A agrees to furnish carriages, is intended for the benefit of the passengers who are to be transported, and such contract creates a contract between A and such passengers.31 A contract between a railway, A, and a county, B, by which A agrees to maintain a car to transport to B's pest-house persons suffering from certain contagious diseases, in consideration of B's maintaining a pest-house, is a contract intended in part for the benefit of those who are to be thus transported, and one of such persons may maintain an action against A, either on the contract in assumpsit, or for breach of duty in tort.32

26 Peterson v. Ry.. 119 Wis. 107, 96 N. W. 532.

27 Faust v. Faust. 144 N. Car. 383. 57 S. E. 22.

28 Bates v. Birmingham Paint & Glass Co., 143 Ala. 198. 38 So. 845; A. E.

Shorthill Co. v. Bartlett. 131 Ia. 259. 108 N W. 308; Morrison v. Payton (Ky.), 104 S. W. 685. 31 Ky. Law Rep. 992; Carolina Hardware Co. v. Raleigh Banking & Trust Co.. 169 N. Car. 744, 86 S. E. 706.

29 Bates v. Birmingham Paint & Glass Co., 143 Ala. 198, 38 So. 845.

30 Little v. Banks. 85 N. Y. 258.

31 John J. Radel Co. v. Borches, 147 Ky. 506. 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 227, 145 S. W. 155.