Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/500

 rale which allows third parties to recover upon a contract made for their benefit does not go so far as to hold that every promise made by one person to another, from the performance of which a third party would derive a benefit, gives a right of action to such third party, he being privy neither to the contract or the consideration. Gurnsey v. Rogers, 47 N. Y. 233; Merrill v. Greene, 55 N. Y. 270; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280; Railroad Co. v. Curtis, 80 N. Y. 219; Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123; Wright v. Terry, 2 So. Rep. 6; Burton vy. Larkin, 13 Pac. Rep. 398; Chung Kee v. Davidson, 15 Pac. Rep. 100; Lorrillard v. Clyde, 25 N. E. Rep. 917.

Pollock & Scott, for respondent:

Tf the intention of the parties to the instrument could nat be determined from the instrument itself evidence to explain it and show how it was acted upon by the parties was proper. 2 Parson on Contracts, 564; Schwartz v. Hyman, 107 N. Y. 562; Bank v. Miles, 73 N. Y. 335; Rindge v. Judson, 24 N. Y. 64 Plaintiff was the real party in interest so far as the guaranty expressed in the contract was concerned, and: the one in whose name the action should be prosecuted. Church v. Teed, 120 N. Y. 583. The sale and delivery of the goods by plaintiff under the provisions of the guaranty was a sufficient consideration to uphold the same. Baker v. DaCunha, 126 N. Y. 293. Plaintiff was not bound to give immediate notice to appellant of the sale of the goods. Notice within a reasonable time after such sale was sufficient. Fisk v. Stone, 50 N. W. Rep. 125; Mfg. Co. v. Welch, 10 How. 462. Commercial contracts and letters of guaranty are not to be construed upon the same principles as are bonds and mortgages, but with a more generous interpretation, for the purpose of reaching the understanding and intent of the parties. Bell v. Bruen, 1 How. 170.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Corliss, C. J. The plaintiff and respondent sold groceries to the defendant Mrs. Hall. The defendant Brandenburg was joined with her in the suit to recover the price of these groceries, the plaintiff basing his right to recover against Bran-