The earlier American cases followed the early English rule and allowed recovery if C was closely related to B.1 The weight of modern authority holds that C may recover from A if the promise is upon consideration, is not under seal, and is made primarily for C's benefit.2 The rule which permits the beneficiary to maintain an action against the promisor, has been said to be based on the principle of avoiding circuity of action wherever possible.3 The doctrine that the beneficiary can sue has led to many practical difficulties, and while recognized and well established, can hardly be said to be favored. Even the courts that allow him to sue, show "no disposition to extend the doctrine relating to third parties to new and doubtful cases.,,4 Where the beneficiary may sue in his own name, it is not necessary that a novation should be established.5 In jurisdictions in which the beneficiary can not sue, the question of novation is of the utmost importance, since the ultimate creditor may enforce the promise of the original debtor if the transaction amounts to a novation, while he can not enforce it if it is merely a contract made for his benefit.

6 Kountz v. Holthouse, 85 Pa. St. 235.

7 First M. E. Church v. Isenberg, 246 Pa. St. 221, 92 Atl. 141.

1Ross v. Milne, 39 Va. (12 Leigh) 204, 37 Am. Dec. 646; Jones v. Thomas, 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 96.

2 King v. Scott, 76 W. Va. 68, 84 S. E. 064.

3 Johnson v. McClung, 26 W. Va. 659; King v. Scott, 76 W. Va. 58, 84 S. E. 954.

4 King v. Scott, 76 W. Va. 58, 84 S. E. 954; Mellvane v. Big Stony Lumber Co., 105 Va. (113. .54 S. E. 473.

5 Cosmopolitan Life Association v. Loegel, 104 Va. 619, 52 S. E. 166. 1Felton v. Dickinson, 10 Mass. 287.

2 United States. Hendrick v. Lindsay, 93 U. S. 143, 23 L. ed. 855; Gibson v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 232 Fed. 225.

Alabama. Moore v.' First National Bank, 130 Ala. 595, 36 So. 777.

Arkansas. Walton v. Proutt, 117 Ark. 388, L. R. A. 1915D, 917, 174 S. W. 1152; Crigler v. Sloss, 124 Ark. 599, 186 S. W. 85.

California. Buckley v. Gray, 110 Cal. 339, 52 Am. St. Rep. 88, 31 L. R. A. 862, 42 Pac. 900; Washer v. Independent Mining & Development Co., 142 Cal. 702, 76 Pac. 654.

Colorado. Hastings v. Pringle, 37 Colo. 86, 86 Pac. 93; Best v. Rpcky Mountain National Bank, 37 Colo. 149, 7 L. R. A. '(N.S.) 1035. 85 Pac. 1124; Grimes v. Barndollar, 58 Colo. 421, 148 Pac. 256.

Florida. Wright v. Terry, 23 Fla. 160, 2 So. 6; Woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 57 Fla. 243, 21 L. R. A. (N.R.) 1034, 49 So. 556; American Securities Co. v. Goldsberry, 69 Fla. 104, \ A. L. R. 15, 67 So. 862.

Illinois. Lawrence v. Oglesby, 178 111. 122, 52 N. E. 945; Edwards v. Schillinger, 245 111. 231, 33 L. R. A. (N.S.) 895, 91 N. E. 1048; Warder, etc., Co. v. Cummins, 74 111. App. 650.

Indiana. Tinkler v. Swaynie, 71 Ind. 562; Rodenbarger v. Bramblett, 78 Ind. 213; Warren v. Farmer, 100 Ind. 593; Ransdel v. Moore, 153 Ind. 393, 53 L. R. A. 753, 53 N. E. 767.

Iowa. Runkle v. Kettering, 127 Ia. 6, 102 N. W. 142; A. E. Shorthill Co. v. Bartlett, 131 Ia. 259, 108 N. W. 308; Meyer v. Stortenbecker, - Ia. - , 165 N. W. 456.

Kansas. West v. Telegraph Co., 39 Kan. 93, 7 Am. St. Rep. 530, 17 Pac. 807; Clay v. Woodrum, 45 Kan. 116, 25 Pac. 619; Howell v. Hough, 46 Kan. 1512, 26 Pac. 436; Ballard v. Home National Bank, 91 Kan. 91, L. R. A. 1916C, 161, 136 Pac. 935; Goeken v. Bank, - Kan. - , 179 Pac. 321; Hol-derman v. Tedford, 7 Kan. App. 657, 53 Pac. 887.

Kentucky. Benge v. Hiatt, 82 Ky. 666, 56 Am. Rep. 912; Williamson v. Yager, 91 Ky. 282, 34 Am. St. Rep. 184, 15 S. W. 660; Schmidtz v. Ry., 101 Ky. 441, 38 L. R. A. 809, 41 S. W. 1015; Daniels v. Gibson (Ky.), 47 S. W. 621; Ballard v. American Hemp Co. (Ky.), 100 S. W. 271, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 1080; Morrison v. Payton (Ky.), 104 S. W. 685, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 992; Winn v. Schenk (Ky.), 110 S. W. 827, 33 Ky. Law Rep. 615; John J. Radel Co. v. Borches, 147 Ky. 506, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 227, 145 S. W. 155; Weber-Wolters Dry Goods Co. v. Scott, 172 Ky. 280, 189 S. W. 223; Caldwell v. Ryan, 173 Ky. 233, 190 S. W. 1078; Citizens' Trust & Guaranty Co. v. Peebles Paving Brick Co., 174 Ky. 439, 192 S. W. 508; Gregory v. Harlan Home Coal Co., 182 Ky. 524, 206 8. W. 765; Bryant v. Jones, 183 Ky. 298, 209 S. W. 30.

Louisiana. Sargeant v. Daunoy, 14 La. 43, 33 Am. Dec. 573.

Maine. Dearborn v. Parks, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 81, 17 Am. Dec. 206; Coffin v. Bradbury, 89 Me. 476, 36 Atl. 988.

Minnesota. Maxcy v. Ins. Co., 54 Minn. 272, 40 Am. St. Rep. 325, 55 N. W. 1130; Cooper v. Hayward, 71 Minn. 374, 70 Am. St. Rep. 330, 74 N. W. 152; Dickinson County v. Fit-terling, 72 Minn. 483, 75 N. W. 731; Koski v. Pakkala, 121 Minn. 450, 47 L. R. A. (N.S.) 183, 141 N. W. 793; Godley v. Weisman, 133 Minn. 1, L. R. A. 1917A, 333, 157 N. W. 711.

Mississippi. Barnes v. Jones, 111 Miss. 337, 71 So. 573.

Missouri. State v. Gas Co., 102 Mo. 472, 22 Am. St. Rep. 789, 14 S. W.

974, 15 S. W. 383; Ellis v. Harrison, 104 Mo. 270, 16 S. W. 198; Howsmon v. Water Co., 119 Mo. 304, 41 Am. St. Rep. 654, 23 L. R. A. 146, 24 S. W. 784; Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Clark, 208 Mo. 89, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 822, 106 S. W. 29 (obiter).

Nebraska. Kaufman v. Bank, 31 Neb. 661, 48 N. W. 738; Rohman v. Gaiaer, 53 Neb. 474, 73 N. W. 923; Butter v. Bruce, 75 Neb. 322, 106 N. W. 445; Wright v. Pfrimmer, 99 Neb. 447, L. R.'A. 1917A, 323, 156 N. W. 1060.

Nevada. Painter v. Kaiser, 27 Nev. 421, 103 Am. St. Rep. 772, 65 L. R. A. 672, 1 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas, 765, 76 Pac. 747.

New Jersey. Whitehead v. Burgess, 61 N. J. L. 75, 3fl Atl. 802; Edwards v. National Window Glass Jobbers' Association (N.J.), 68 Atl. 800; Holt v. United Security L. Ins. & T. Co., 76 N. J. L. 585, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 691, 72 Atl. 301.

New Mexico. Lawrence Coal Co. v. Shanklin, - N. M. - -, 183 Pac. 435.

New York. Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N. Y. 268; Burr v. Beers, 24 N. Y. 178, 80 Am. Dec. 327; Barker v. Bradley, 42 N. Y. 316, 1 Am. Rep. 521; Little v. Banks, 85 N. Y. 258; Todd v. Weber, 95 N. Y. 181, 47 Am. Rep. 20; Societa Italiana v. Sulzer, 138 N. Y. 468, 34 N. E. 193; Buchanan v. Tilden, 158 N. Y. 109, 70 Am. St. Rep. 454, 44 L. R. A. 170, 52 N. E. 724; Embler v. Ins. Co., 158 N. Y. 431, 44 L. R. A. 512, 53 N. E. 212; Smyth v. New York, 203 N. Y. 106, 96 N. E. 409; Zeiser v. Cohn, 207 N. Y. 407, 47 L. R. A. (N.S.) 186, 101 N. E. 184; Baird v. Erie Ry., 210 N. Y. 225, 104 N. E. 614; Bradley T. McDonald, 218 N. Y. 351, 113 N. E. 340; De Cicco v. Schweizer, 221 N. Y. 431, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 816, 117 N. E. 807.

North Carolina. Faust v. Faust, 144 N. Car. 383, 57 S. E. 22; Carolina Hardware Co. v. Raleigh Banking & Trust Co., 169 N. Car. 744, 86 S. E. 706; Springs v. Cole, 171 N. Car. 418, 88 S. E. 721; Chandler v. Jones, 173 N. Car. 427, 92 S. E. 145; Crumpler v. Hines, 174 N. Car. 283, 93 S. E. 780.

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, L. R. A. 1916D, 149, 155 N. W. 863.

Ohio. Thompson v. Thompson, 4 O. S. 333; Society of Friends v. Haines, 47 O. S. 423, 25 N. E. 119; Poe v. Dixon, 60 O. S. 124, 71 Am. St. Rep. 713, 54 N. E. 86; Kiley v. Hall, 96 O S. 374, L. R. A. 1918B, 961, 117 N. E. 359 (rule recognized but no contract found to exist).

Oklahoma. Baker-Hanna-Blake Co. v. Paynter-McVicker Grocery Co., - Okla. - , 174 Pac. 265.

Oregon. Hoffman v. Habighorst, 49 Or. 379, 89 Pac. 952 [rehearing denied, 91 Pac. 20].

Rhode Island. Wood v. Moriarity, 15 R. I. 518, 9 Atl. 427; Waterhouse v. Waterhouse, 20 R. I. 485, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 639, 72 Atl. 642.

South Carolina. Ancrum v. Camden Water, Light & Ice Co., 82 S. Car. 284, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1029, 64 S. E. 151 (rule recognized, but no contract found to exist).

Tennessee. McCarty v. Blevins, 11 Tenn. (5 Yerg.) 195, 26 Am. Dec. 262.

Texas. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 75 Tex. 531, 1C Am. St Rep. 920, 6 L. R. A. 844, 12 S. W. 657.

Utah. Thompson v. Cheeseman, 15 Utah 43, 48 Pac. 477; Brown v. Mark-land, 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.

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

Virginia. Cosmopolitan Life Association v. Loegel, 104 Va. 619, 52 S. E 166.

Washington. Union Machinery & Supply Co. v. Darnell, 89 Wash. 226, 154 Pac. 183.

West Virginia. Jenkins v. Chesapeake & 0. R. R. Co., 61 W. Va. 507, 49 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1166, 57 S. E. 48; Butts v. Butts, 81 W. Va. 55, 94 S. E. 360.

Wisconsin. Grant v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co., 77 Wis. 72, 43 N. W. 951; Larson v. Cook, 85 Wis. 564, 55 N. W. 703; Stites v. Thompson, 98 Wis. 329, 73 N. W. 774; Tweeddale v. Tweed-dale, 116 Wis. 517, 96 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 61 L. R. A. 509, 93 N. W. 440; Gilbert Paper Co. v. Whiting Paper Co., 123 Wis. 472, 68 L. R. A. 956, 102 N. W. 20; Smith v. Pfluger, 126 Wis. 253, 110 Am. St. Rep. 911, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 783, 105 N. W. 476; Fanning v. Murphy, 126 Wis. 538, 110 Am. St. Rep. 946, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 666, 105 N. W. 1056; R. Connor Co. v. Olson (Wis.), 115 N. W. 811; Concrete Steel Co. v. Illnois Surety Co., 163 Wis. 41, 157 N. W. 543; Sederwick v. Blanchard. 164 Wis. 421. 160 N. W. 267.

For a discussion of the riehts of the beneficiarv see Privitv of Contract, by Jesse W. Lilienthal, 1 Harvard Law Review, 226; The Right of a Third Person to Sue Upon a Contract Made for His Benefit, by Edward Q. Keasbey, 8 Harvard Law Review 93; Contracts for the Benefit of a Third Person, by Samuel Williston, 15 Harvard Law Review 767; Contracts for the Benefit of a Third Person in the Civil Law, by Samuel Williston, 16 Harvard Law Review 43; The Equitable Rights and Liabilities of a Stranger to a Contract, by Harlan F. Stone, 18 Columbia Law Review 291; Contracts for the Benefit of Third Persons, by Arthur L. Corbin, 27 Yale Law Jour. 1008; The Right of a Third Person to Sue on a Contract Made in His Favor, by Henry O. Taylor, 15 American Law Review 231; Assumption of Encumbrances by the Purchaser of Land, 18 American Law Register (N.S.) 337, 401, and Contracts for the Benefit of Third Persons, 23 American Law Register (N.S.) 1.

See also, Admissibility of Declarations of the Insured Against the Beneficiary, by Albert M. Kales, 6 Columbfe Law Review 509.

3Barnett v. Pratt, 37 Neb. 349, 55 N. W. 1050.

4 Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495, 50 Pac. 623.

See to the same effect, Wilson v. Shea, 29 Cal. App. 788, 157 Pac. 543; John Horstmann Co. v. Waterman, 103 Wash. 18, 1 A. L. R. 856, 173 Pac. 733.

5 Smith v. Pfluger, 126 Wis. 253, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 783, 105 N. W. 476.