Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/263

235 CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FROM THIRD PERSONS. 235 of property to him by the mother of the plaintiff, agreed with her to pay the plaintiff £ 500 within two months after the mother's death ; and it was held that the plaintiff could not recover upon that contract, as the consideration moved from another. In Cum- mings V. Klapp,^ the plaintiff had an execution against one C. for The defendant, a friend of C, promised the officer to pay the debt in three months, in consideration of the officer's forbearance for that time to collect of C. Held, that the plaintiff, not being privy to the promise, nor consenting to the forbearance, could not main- tain an action upon it. So if A. has a claim against B, and B., having a similar claim against C, obtains a promise from C, for a consideration paid him by B. to pay A.'s claim, A. cannot maintain an action against C. on that promise, being a stranger to the consideration and to the promise, and not having accepted C. as a debtor in lieu of B.^ In McCoubray v. Thomson,^ one G., owning a farm of the value of £i6, wished to divide it equally between M. and T., and all three agreed that he might convey it to T., and T. promised to pay ^98 to M. Held that M. could not maintain an action for the amount, although he was privy to the promise, simply because no consideration moved from him.^ So in Linneman v. Moross,^ a father devised property to his son, who promised him, in consideration thereof, to pay the plaintiff, a daughter, $10 a month for life. Held, that she could not main- tain an action at law upon such promise, and that, if it created a trust, it could not be enforced on the law side of the court. In National Bank v. Grand Lodge,^ the Masonic Hall Associa- tion issued its bonds to the amount of ;^200,ooo ; some of which were held by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant corpora- tion voted to assume the payment of the bonds, provided the Ma- sonic Hall Association would issue its stock to said Grand Lodo-e o to the amount assumed as fast as the bonds were paid. Held, that the plaintiff could not recover on such promise, for want of privity, and Mr. Justice Strong thus states the rule on this subject : 1 5 Watts &S. 511(1843). ' Ramsdale v. Horton, 3 Pa. St. 330 (1846); and see Torrens v. Campbell, 74 P». St. 470(1893). '2 Ir. Rep. C. L. 226(1868). 698 Mich. 178(1893). 8 98 U.S. R. 123(1878).
 * ^72.2i, which he put into the hands of an officer for collection.
 * See also Faulkner v. Faulkner, 23 Ont. Rep. 252 (1893).