American Exchange Nat. Bank v. Northern Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1896
• Citation: 76 F. 130
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division
• Parties: AMERICAN EXCH. NAT. BANK v. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.

76 F. 130

AMERICAN EXCH. NAT. BANK v. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Northern Division.

June 5, 1896

James Hamilton Lewis, for plaintiff.

Harold Preston, for defendant.

HANFORD District Judge.

This is an action by the American Exchange National Bank of New York to recover a balance due to the plaintiff from the Chicago &amp Northern Pacific Railroad Company. The complaint alleges that, after the debt had been contracted, the defendant, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, entered into and made an agreement with the said Chicago & Northern Pacific Railroad Company whereby, for a valuable consideration moving from the Chicago & Northern Pacific Railroad Company to the defendant said defendant assumed, covenanted, and agreed to pay the amount of the indebtedness of said Chicago & Northern Pacific Railroad Company to the plaintiff. The defendant has demurred to the complaint, and upon the argument its counsel relies upon the point that the plaintiff, being a stranger to the contract, cannot sue the defendant. The explicit language of the complaint makes it clear that the promise of the defendant was to pay an existing debt, and it was made for the benefit of the Chicago & Northern Pacific Railroad Company; and no facts are alleged from which an inference may be drawn that the parties to the contract were actuated by a desire to benefit the plaintiff, nor that the scope of their intentions included any provision for rights or interests other than their own; and there is no pretense that under the contract anything of value or assets have come to the promisor's hands, or under its control, which, in equity belongs to the plaintiff, or is subject to any lien existing in favor of the plaintiff. The case, therefore, comes fully and fairly within the rule of the decision of the supreme court in the case of National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U.S. 123-125. The rule and the authority of the case cited have received express recognition in the circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit, in the case of Sayward v Dexter, Horton & Co., 19 C.C.A. 176, 72 F. 765. The decisions of the supreme court in the cases of Hendrick v. Lindsay, 93 U.S. 143-150, and Albany & Rensselaer Co. v. Lundberg, 121 U.S. 451-457, 7 Sup.Ct. 958, cited by the attorney for the plaintiff, are not in conflict. In the former case the supreme court construed the promise given to one person, upon the faith of...