As a result of such contract, C is discharged from his liability to B, and B is discharged from his liability to A,1 A may maintain an action against C,2 and may enforce the obligation against C, even in jurisdictions where a person for whose benefit a contract is made can not enforce it at law.3 Hence, a subsequent attaching creditor of B's, who attempts by garnishee process against C to enforce B's claim against C, can not recover as against A's claim.4 If the new contract is unconditional the promisor is bound thereby, although the original claim was conditional and such condition was broken after the contract of novation.5 If A enters into the contract of novation in good faith and without notice of a defense which C might have made as against B, C can not set up such defense as against A.6

12 England. Cuxon v. Chadley, 3 B. & C. 601.

Alabama. Perry v. Gallagher, - Ala. - , 75 So. 306.

Michigan. Wierman v. Bay City-Michigan Sugar Co., 142 Mich. 422, 106 N. W. 75.

Minnesota. Hanson v. Nelson, 82 Minn. 220, 84 N. W. 742.

Oklahoma. McFarland v. Mayo, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917C, 901, 162 Pac 753.

Rhode Island. Cohen v. P. E. Harding Construction Co., 41 R. I. 242, 103 Atl. 702.

West Virginia. Stuckey v. Middle States Loan, Bldg. & C. Co., 61 W. Va. 74, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 814, 55 S. E. 996.

Wisconsin. Miley v. Heaney, 168 Wis. 68, 169 N. W. 64.

"Nor did the contract of December 3, 1009, relieve Williams from the obligation so imposed. As he was not a party to it, and it did not deal with the question of his liability, it can not be regarded as having effected a novation. His checks were not surrendered. The contract does not in terms release him, and there is no evidence in its terms, or elsewhere, tending to prove it was taken in satisfaction or payment of the debt. The taking of collateral security from the debtor or a stranger does not effect a novation. Yerby v. Lynch, 3 Gratt. 460. Novation involves extinguishment of the old debt. Chenoweth v. National Bldg. Asso., 59 W. Va. 653, 53 S. E. 659." Lutz v. Williams, 79 W. Va. 609, L. R. A. 1918A, 76, 91 S. E. 460.

13 Mills v. McMillan, - Fla. - , 82 So. 812.

1 United States. Holloway v. White-Dunham Shoe Co., 151 Fed. 216, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 704; Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Irwin, 249 Fed. 726 [affirming decree, 239 Fed. 739, and certiorari denied, 246 U. S. 671, 62 L. ed. 931].

Georgia. Dillard v. Dillard, 118 Ga. 97, 44 S. E. 885.

New Jersey. Schlicher v. Whyte, 65 N. J. Eq. 404, 54 Atl. 1126 [affirming without report, Schlicher v. Vogel, 61 N. J. Eq. 158, 47 Atl. 448].

New York. Munson v. Magee, 161 N. Y. 182, 55 N. E. 916.

Ohio. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Hoyer, 66 O. S. 344, 64 N. E. 435.

Oklahoma. McFarland v. Mayo, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917C, 901, 162 Pac 753.

Virginia. Barnes v. Crockett, 111 Va. 240, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 464, 68 S. E. 983.

Wisconsin. Elkey v. Seymour, 169 Wis. 223, 172 N. W. 138.