 that where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, that third person may maintain an action upon it.  Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York - Página 172por New York (State). Court of Appeals, George Franklin Comstock, Henry Rogers Selden, Francis Kernan, Erasmus Peshine Smith, Joel Tiffany, Edward Jordan Dimock, Samuel Hand, Hiram Edward Sickels, Louis J. Rezzemini, Edmund Hamilton Smith, Edwin Augustus Bedell, Alvah S. Newcomb, James Newton Fiero - 1870Visualização integral - Acerca deste livro
 | William Herbert Page - 1914 - 1166 páginas
...especially where they refuse consent to suing: Bayles v. Grossman. 5 Dec. Rep. 354, 5 Am. L. Rec. 13. If one person make a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, founded upon a consideration, such third person may maintain an action at law upon the promise against... | |
 | Eugene Allen Gilmore, William Charles Wermuth - 1917 - 970 páginas
...this State, upon what was then regarded as the settled law of England, "that where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, that third person may maintain an action upon it." Schermerhorn v. Vanderheyden, 1 John. R. 140, has often been reasserted by our courts and... | |
 | Sir Ronald Roxburgh, Ronald Francis Roxburgh - 1917 - 144 páginas
...In the case of Lawrence v. Fox,1 the general proposition was confirmed that " where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, that third person may maintain an action upon it." This rule has been widely adopted throughout the United States, and covers a number of cases,... | |
 | George Purcell Costigan - 1921 - 1544 páginas
...this state, upon what was then regarded as the settled law of England, "that where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, that third person may maintain an action upon it." Schermerhorn v. Vanderheyden, (1 John. R. 140,) has often been reasserted by our courts and... | |
 | University of Minnesota. Law School - 1921 - 362 páginas
...promise? In some of the text books and decisions it is stated generally "that, where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, that third person may maintain an action upon it." But we do not think there is a case to be found in which such an action was sustained upon... | |
 | William Everett Britton, Ralph Stanley Bauer - 1922 - 1612 páginas
...sustain them. Some of the cases seem to proceed "upon the broac] principle that if one person makes a promise to another, for the benefit of a third person,...third person may maintain an action on the promise;" and that without regard to the question whether the benefit of a third person was the principal thing... | |
 | Briscoe Baldwin Clark - 1922 - 1270 páginas
...moving from him, on what was then regarded as the settled law of England, " that where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, that third person may maintain an action on such promise."92 It is not necessary in an action by a third person for whose benefit a promise is... | |
 | 1922 - 1620 páginas
...involving the liability of a grantee to a mortgagee, laid down the broad general principle that if a person make a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, that person may maintain an action on the promise. This doctrine has been consistently adhered to in New... | |
 | Alfred William Bays - 1923 - 1612 páginas
...early as 1806, it was announced by the Supreme Court of this state * * * 'That where one person makes r. "3. By the discharge of a prior party. "4. By a valid tender of payment made by a prior party. " it.' " Question 162: What was the agreement in this case? Was the beneficiary allowed to sue? (Note... | |
 | Ernest Wilson Huffcut, Edwin Hamlin Woodruff - 1925 - 872 páginas
...this state, upon what was then regarded as the settled law of England, '' that where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, that third person may maintain an action upon it." Schemerhorn v. Vanderheyden (1 John. R. 140) has often been reasserted by our courts and... | |
| |
