Atwood v. Burpee
| Decision Date | 14 June 1904 |
| Citation | 58 A. 237,77 Conn. 42 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ATWOOD v. BURPEE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; William T. Elmer, Judge.
Action by Fred B. Atwood against Lucien F. Burpee to recover damages for breach of a contract alleged to have been made by defendant with certain persons for the benefit of plaintiff. From a judgment for defendant, rendered on sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Nathaniel R. Bronson, for appellant.
Terrence F. Carmody, for appellee.
It is alleged in the complaint that Mrs. George Tompkins, since deceased, and her son, George Tompkins, entered into a written contract with the defendant, by the terms of which it was agreed that the defendant should collect certain money due Mrs. Tompkins and her son upon an insurance policy on the life of George Tompkins, deceased, husband of said Mrs. Tompkins, and father of said George Tompkins, Jr., and that, after having expended a certain portion of the money so collected, for certain purposes connected with the settlement of the estate of said George Tompkins, deceased, of which the defendant was executor, the defendant should pay over the remainder to the plaintiff, to whom the deceased George Tompkins was indebted in his lifetime, and who had presented a claim against the estate of said deceased. The complaint further alleges that, after expending the sums provided for in said agreement, there remained in the defendant's hands $1,150, which then became due the plaintiff, and which the defendant, though requested, has never paid the plaintiff. Damages of $2,000 are claimed.
The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the grounds that the plaintiff was not a party to the contract sued upon, that he did not acquire therefrom any right of action against the defendant, and that he was not a promisee in the contract sued upon. The demurrer was properly sustained.
This is not an action for the enforcement of an equitable right, but of an alleged legal right in the plaintiff to damages for breach of the defendant's written agreement to apply certain funds to the payment of the plaintiff's claim against the estate of George Tompkins, deceased. The plaintiff was not a party to the agreement in which the defendant promised to so apply said funds. Although the language of the contract is not stated, it appears sufficiently clearly from the averments of the complaint that the defendant's promise was expressed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moorer v. U.S. Bank N.A.
...third party, be the intention of the parties to so benefit the third party." (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Atwood v. Burpee, 58 A. 237, 238 (Conn. 1904)). As a result, Ms. Moorer does not have "a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Ashcr......
-
Baurer v. Devenes
...could be supported, it would be necessary to make both the defendant [the promisee] and the English Company parties." In Atwood v. Burpee, 77 Conn. 42, 58 A. 237, the case of single creditor beneficiary was before the court, and we said: " The demurrer was properly sustained. This is not an......
-
Pennsylvania Cement Co. v. Bradley Contracting Co.
...a third person, the only persons who can sue upon the contract are the parties who made it. Price v. Easton, 4 B. & Ad. 433; Atwood v. Burpee, 77 Conn. 42, 58 A. 237; George H. Sampson Co., 202 Mass. 326, 88 N. E. 911; First M. E. Church v. Isenberg, 246 Pa. 221, 92 A. 141; Edwards v. Thoma......
-
Baurer v. Devenes
...could be supported, it would be necessary to make both the defendant [the promisee] and the English Company parties." In Atwood v. Burpee, 77 Conn. 42, 58 Atl. 237, the case of a single creditor beneficiary was before the court, and we "The demurrer was properly sustained. This is not an ac......