Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/265

237 CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FROM THIRD PERSONS. 237 checks which he might draw on the bank, in consideration that he would deposit his funds in said bank, which had been done.^ So where in a policy of life insurance the company promises to pay the amount insured to the assured, his executors, administra- tors, or assigns, " for the benefit of his widow, if any," the widow cannot, at common law, maintain an action thereon in her own name,^ especially if such policy be under seal.^ So a promise by a remaining partner to his retiring partner, upon a consideration between them, that he will individually pay all the firm debts, cannot in some courts be enforced against him individually by a firm creditor ;* much less can such promise be enforced against one who was only a surety for the performance of such partner's promise, such surety receiving none of the assets.^ In Vermont too it is well settled that the general rule is that only the person to whom the promise is made, and from whom the consideration moves, can maintain an action at law upon it.^ So in Michigan,^ Minnesota,^ and Indiana.^ Thus far there is approximately an accord in the different States on this subject. But there remains another class of cases where much difference of opinion exists. In the first place, it is quite generally agreed that if a debtor, without the knowledge of his creditor, conveys property to a third person, or, for some other consideration between them, procures a promise from such person to pay or guarantee the debt, the creditor cannot afterwards, upon learning of such promise, recover the debt from such third person, not having discharged the original debtor. ^^ And logically that ^ Carr v. National Security Bank, 107 Mass. 45 (1871) ; Bank of the Republic v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152(1869) ; ^inaNat. Bank z/. Fourth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 82(1871). 2 Bailey v, N. E. Insurance Co., 114 Mass. 177 ( 1873) ; Chamberlain v. The N. H. Fire Ins. Co., 55 N. H. 249 (1875) ; Stowe v. Phinney, 78 Me. 244 (1886). ' Flynn v. North Am. Life Ins. Co., 115 Mass. 449 (1874). fi Campbell v. Lacock, 40 Pa. St. 448 (1861) ; and see Morrison v. Beckey, 6 Watts, 349 (1837). toon, 17 Vt. 244 ; Fugure z/. Mutual Society, 46 Vt. 369 ; Fairchild v. N. E. Mut. Life Association, 51 Vt. 623. ■^ Wheeler v. Stewart, 94 Mich. 445 ; Hidden v, Chappel, 48 Mich. 527. ® Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446. 2 Ind. 176; Conklin v. Smith, 7 Ind. 107. (1834) ; Blymire v. Boistle, 6 Watts, 1S2 (1837) ; Warren v. liatchthler, 15 N. II. 129 (1844); Finney?/. Finney, 16 Pa. St. 380 (1851); Manny z/. Frazier, 27 Mo. 419 (1S58);
 * Merrill v. Green, 55 N. Y. 270 (1873) ; Morehead v. Wriston, 73 N. C. 398.
 * Crampton v. Ballard, 10 Vt. 251; Pangborn v. Saxton, 11 Vt. 79; Hall v. Hun-
 * Salmon v Brown, 6 Blackf. 347 ; Farlow v. Kemp, 7 Id. 544 ; Britzell v. Fryberger,
 * "Owings V. Owings, i II. & G. 484 (1827) ; Butterfield v. Hartshorr, 7 N. H. 34;,