The courts in which C is allowed to enforce the promise against A, do so only when A's promise is primarily intended to benefit C. If the benefit to C is merely incidental, C can not maintain an action against A.1 A statutory provision to the effect that one for whose benefit a contract is made may enforce such contract, does not apply to one who is benefited incidentally by the performance of the contract if such benefit was not intended directly by the parties thereto.2 Under a statute which provides that a third person may sue on a contract only if it appears expressly that it is intended for his benefit, it is said that if the intention to confer a benefit upon such third person appears from a fair construction of the entire contract, the third person may sue, although such intention is not set forth in express words.3 It is said that a contract to pay a debt due to a third person is presumably intended for the benefit of such third person, unless it appears affirmatively that such benefit was not intended.4 If B delivers to a carrier, A, property which is consigned to C, the contract between A and B is presumably for the benefit of the consignee, C.5 Under some circumstances, A may perform a contract between himself and B in such manner as to injure C by A's negligence. In such cases C may recover from A in tort, without regard to to his right to sue on the theory that the contract was made for his benefit.6 One to whom a forged telegram has been sent, may maintain an action against the telegraph company for damages for negligently accepting and delivering such message.7 Circumstances may be such, however, as to impose some duty upon A in favor of C. in order to enable C to maintain an action in tort upon this theory.8 If A sells to C goods which are manufactured by B, A is not liable, in the absence of negligence on his part, for damages sustained by reason of the fact that the article is explosive when used in the way in which it is made to be used.9 If C, as agent for B, buys food from A, and C subsequently eats of such food and is made ill by reason of the fact that it. is unsuitable for such use, C can not maintain an action against A for damages for breach of warranty.10

1 United States. National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, 25 L. ed. 75; Constable v. Steamship Co., 154 U. 6. 51, 38 L. ed. 903; Austin v. Seligman, 18 Fed. 519; Sayward v. Dexter, etc., Co., 72 Fed. 758, 19 C. C. A. 176; American, etc., Bank v. Ry., 76 Fed. 130; United States Steel Products Co. v. Poole-Dean Co., 245 Fed. 333, - C.

Arkansas. Thomas Mfg. Co., v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27, 44 S. W. 218; Dickinson v. McCoppin, 121 Ark. 414, 181 S. W. 151.

California. Chung Kee v. Davidson, 73 Cal. 522, 15 Pac. 100; Buckley v. Gray, 110 Cal. 339, 52 Am. St. Rep. 88, 31 L. R. A. 862, 42 Pac. 900.

Colorado. People v. Hoag, 54 Colo. 542. 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 824, 131 Pac. 400.

Connecticut. Treat v. Stanton, 14 Conn. 445, 36 Am. Dec. 492.

Florida. Wright v. Terry, 23 Fla. 160, 2 So. 6; Freeman v. Ry., 32 Fla. 420, 13 So. 892.

Illinois. Crandall v. Payne, 154 111. 627, 39 N. E. 601 [affirming, 54 111. App. 644]; Rodhouse v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 219 111. 596, 76 N. E. 836; Searles v. Flora, 225 111. 167, 80 N. E. 98.

Indiana. Farlow v. Kemp, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 544; Reynolds v. Ry., 143 Ind. 579. 40 N. E. 410.

Iowa. German State Bank v. Northwestern, etc., Co., 104 Ia. 717, 74 N. W. 685.

Kansas. Burton v. Larkin, 36 Kan. 246, 59 Am. Rep. 541, 13 Pac. 398.

Kentucky. Gibson v. Johnson (Ky.), 65 S. W. 116; Hudson v. Cincinnati, N.

O. & T. P. R. Co., 152 Ky. 711, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 184, 154 S. W. 47; Ewell v. Best, - Ky. - , 198 S. W. 4.

Minnesota. Greenwood v. Sheldon, 31 Minn. 254, 17 N. W. 473.

Missouri. St. Louis v. Wright Contracting Co., 202 Mo. 451, 119 Am. St. Rep. 810, 101 S. W. 6; Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Clark, 208 Mo. 89, 106 S. W. 29.

Nebraska. Eaton v. Waterworks Co., 37 Neb. 546, 40 Am. St. Rep. 510, 21 L. R. A. 663, 56 N. W. 201; Frerking v. Thomas, 64 Neb. 193, 89 N. W. 1005; Gammel Book Co. v. Paine, 75 Neb. 683, 106 N. W. 777.

New Jersey. Styles v. F. R. Long Co., 67 N. J. L. 413, 51 Atl. 710 [affirmed in Styles v. F. R. Long Co., 70 N. J. L. 301,57 Atl. 4481; Baum v. Somerville Water Co., 84 N. J. L. 611, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966, 87 Atl. 140.

New York. Simson v. Brown, 68 N. Y. 355; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 195; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 498, 19 Am. St. Rep. 514, 10 L. R. A. 113, 25 N. E. 917; Durnherr v. Rau, 135 N. Y. 219, 32 N. E. 49; Berry Harvester Co. v. Machine Co., 152 N. V. 540 46 N. E. 952.

North Dakota. Parlin v. Hall, 2 N. D. 473, 62 N. W. 405.

Ohio. Vought v. R. R., 58 O. S. 123, 50 N. E. 442; Blunk v. Dennison Water Supply Co., 71 O. S. 250, 73 N. E. 210; Thomas v. Trust Co., 81 O. S. 432, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1210, 91 N. E. 183.

Oregon. Parker v. Jeffery, 26 Or. 186, 37 Pac. 712; Washburn v. Investment Co., 26 Or. 436, 38 Pac. 620, 36 Pac. 533; Brower, etc., Lumber Co. v. Miller, 28 Or. 565, 52 Am. St. Rep. 807, 43 Pac 659.

Pennsylvania. Blymire v. Boistle, 6 Watts (Pa.) 182, 31 Am. Dec. 458; First M. E. Church v. Isenberg, 246 Pa. St. 221, 92 Atl. 141.

South Carolina. Mack Mfg. Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 103 S. Car 55, 87 S. E. 439.

Tennessee. Ruohs v. Traders' Fire Ins. Co., 1ll Tenn. 405, 102 Am. St. Rep. 790, 78 S. W. 85.

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

Virginia. Newberry Land Co. v. Newberry, 95 Va. 119, 27 S. E. 899.

Wisconsin. Campbell v. Carnegie, 98 Wis. 99, 73 N. W. 572; Electric Appliance Co. v. Guaranty Co., 110 Wis. 434, 53 L. R. A. 609, 85 N. W. 648. "To entitle him to an action the contract must have been made for his benefit. He must be the party intended to be benefited." Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 N. Y. 233, 240, 7 Am. Rep. 440 [quoted in Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495, 501, 50 Pac. 623]. The

"benefit must be the direct result of performance." Durnherr v. Rau, 135 N. Y. 219, 32 N. E. 49. "It is quite certain that, to enable the third party to enforce such contract, there must have been an intent on the part of the promisor to benefit him, and some duty or obligation to carry out such promise." Rowe v. Moon, 115 Wis. 566, 92 N. W. 263.

2 Standard Gas Power Corp. v. New England Casualty Co., 90 N. J. L. 570, 101 Atl. 281; Hiner v. Washita Valley Bank, 51 Okla. 606, 152 Pac. 112.

3 Allen & Curry Mfg. Co. v. Shreve-port Waterworks Co., 113 La. 1091, 68 L. R. A. 650, 37 So. 980.

4 Concrete Steel Co. v. Illinois Surety Co., 163 Wis. 41, 157 N. W. 543.

5 Pratt v. Northern Pacific Express Co., 13 Ida. 373, 121 Am. St. Rep. 268, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 499, 90 Pac. 341.

5 State Bank v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 19 N. M. 211, L. R. A. 1915A, 120, 142 Pac. 156.