Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/117

101 RIGHT TO SUE UPON A CONTRACT. lOI whether debt or account lay; and it was adjudged that, although there might be no contract between the parties, " uncore qt argent ou biens soit baile sur cond. al use, A, A poit aver det de ceo. issint est I'opinion Montague 28 H. 8, Dyer 20, 21 en Core et Woody's Case, et auxi un president de tiel action de det en le Hure de entries, 45 EHz. B. R." In Starkey v. Mill,^ a father gave goods to his son in considera- tion that the son should pay the plaintiff twenty pounds, and Roll, C. J., held on motion for arrest the declaration was good because there was not merely a debt by intendment, but a plain contract, because the goods were given for the benefit of the plaintiff. •* Here is a promise in law made to the plaintiff, though there be not a promise in fact; there is a debt here and the promise is good." In Oldham v. Bateman,^ where the guardian of an infant paid. J. S. ^12 at the infant's request, and J. S. agreed to educate the infant and pay him £ when he came of age, it was held that the infant was the proper person to bring suit for the money. In all these cases there was money or property placed in the defendant's hands for the use of the plaintiff, and it was held that the plaintiff might sue for it as a debt. On the other hand, where the action depended on a promise there are early cases in which the right of the person to be benefited to bring suit is denied. In Evans v. Jampney, 24 Car. I., cited by Windham, J., in Dela Bar V. Gold,^ A sold a house to B and in consideration thereof B promised to pay money to A and C. In an action brought by them it was adjudged that there was no good consideration to C. In Bourne v. Mason ^ the case was distinguished from cases where the plaintiff did a meritorious act or was a near relation of the person to whom the promise was made ; and it was held that he could not recover because he was a stranger to the contract. Lord Holt, in Eland v. Yard,^ and Buller, J., in Marchington %y. Vernon,^ laid it down as a rule that " on a promise not under seal 1 Style, 296; I Viner's Abr. 333, sub notn. Starkey and Mylne. 2 I RoUe Abr. 31, pi. 8 ; i Viner's Abr. 334. 8 Keb. 64. There is a long discussion of the subject in Dela Bar v. Gold, Keb. 44, 63, but no decision. fi I Ld. Raym. 368. fi I Bos. & Pul. loi, note. 14
 * I Ventris, 6, 20 & 21 Car. II. in B. & R.