Case Name: MILLER v. BEEBE
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-09
Citations: 1 Wright 431
Docket Number: 
Parties: MILLER v. BEEBE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
MILLER v. BEEBE.
Covenant with A, to pay B, who maj' sue — general rule — exceptions.
.A covenant made with B. to pay several sums to C, to B, and to G, may be sued by B, in his own name, if the money is not paid.
"Such an agreement is not by operation of law made with C, B, and G, and to be by them sued.
'The general rule is, that he alone with whom an express contract is made can sue it; suits on negotiable instruments resulting from the statute, and the cases where the person having the beneficial interest in a contract may sue, form exceptions from the rule; they do not establish a new one.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas. Beebe declared in the. ■Common Pleas, that on the 9th of September, 1820, Miller and his wife executed to him a mortgage (which had been lost), by which» they conveyed to him a tract of land upon condition, to be void if Miller paid, on or before the 1st of April, 1822, to Rowland Craig, $192.07, to Thomas Bingham $138.04, and to J. G. Gross $198.26,, in which he covenanted with Beebe to pay said sums. It was assigned for breach the non payment of either of said sums. To-this there was a general demurrer, which was overruled by the court, and a final judgment given for the plaintiff.
Goffinherry and Bartlett,
for the plaintiff in error, claim that the court erred in overruling the demurrer, and cited 1 Ch. Pl. 2, 5; and 3 B. & P. 147.
Burr and Parker, contra,
cited 1 Saund. Pl. and Ev. 478; 6 Maule & Sel. 77, 575; 3 B. & P. 335; 5 T. R. 234; 9 John. 75; 8 Coke 69; 1 H. Bl. 81; 7 T. R. 359, 60, n.; 8 Mass. 103.

Opinion:
WRIGHT, J.
The authorities cited by the plaintiff in error do-not appear to bear on the real question before us. They go to show in what cases one for whose benefit another covenants with a third person may sue directly in his own name. If this were a suit by Craig, Bingham, or Gross, for the money due them, possibly they 432] *would apply. This covenant was made by Miller with Beebe, to pay Craig, &c., and he now claims that his covenant,, though in fact made with Beebe, by operation of law was made with Craig, &c., either jointly or severally, and they alone can sue. The-general rule is that he alone with whom express contracts are madelias the legal interest in them, and alone can sue. Suits in the name of the endorsee of negotiable contracts, result from the statute; and the other cases where suits may be brought by the person beneficially interested, do not establish any new rule; they form exceptions from the old one. Beebe here has the legal interest and can sue; 8 Mass. 103; 5 O. 71.
The judgment is affirmed.