Sec 788

It is agreed on all sides that on a deed inter partes none but parties can sue. If the deed, in Other words, on its face restricts its parties to "A. of the first part and B. of the second part," C. cannot sue thereon, even though the contract purport to have been made for his sole advantage, and contain an express covenant with him for his benefit.1 An action on a policy of marine insurance, however, can be brought, either by the broker who negotiated it, provided he be the ostensible party, or by the party interested.2 A bond, also, payable to B. or C. may be sued on by B.;3 and a party designated in a composition deed, as beneficially interested, there being a several covenant with him by the debtor, may sue on the deed.4

Sec 789

On a deed poll, in which the promisee is not formally named as a party to the deed, but appears only as recited either specially or as one of a class in the body of the deed, the promisee, if complying with the conditions of the deed, or otherwise contributing a sufficient consideration, is entitled to bring suit.5 When a policy of insurance is issued as a deed poll, in which the insurers covenant to pay the loss insured against, without specifying the covenantee by name, all persons interested in the insurance and on behalf of whom it is made may sue on the covenant.6 But the party suing must in such cases sue subin deeds inter partes only parties can join.

On a deed poll, party designated may sue.

1 Ch. on PL 16th Am. ed. (1879) 4; Offly V. Ward, 1 LeV. 235; Bushell V. Beavan, 1 Bing. N. C. 120; Chesterfield Co. V. Hawkins, 3 H. & C. 677; Storer V. Gordon, 3 M. & S. 308; Bar-ford V. Stuckey, 2 B. & B. 333; Berkeley V. Hardy, 5 B. & C. 355; Hinkley V. Fowler, 15 Me. 285; Sanders V. Filley, 12 Pick. 554; Northampton V. Elwell, 4 Gray, 81; Hornbeck V. West-hrook, 9 Johns. 73; Hornbeck V. Sleght, 12 Johns. 199; Spencer V. Field, 10 Wend. 87; Robbins V. Ayres, 10 Mo. 538.

2 Sunderland Ins. Co. V. Kearney, 16.

Q. B. 925; Lazarus V. Ins. Co., 5 Pick. 76; Rider V. Ins. Co., 20 Pick. 259; see Ch. on Con. 11th Am. ed. 77.

3 White V. Hancock, 2 C. B. 830.

4 Gresty V. Gibson, L. R. 1 Ex. 112; Reeves V. Watts, L. R. 1 Q. B. 412; Frost V. Gage, 1 Allen, 262; cited Ch. on Con. 11th Am. ed. 78; Leake, 2d ed. 445.

5 Leake, 2d ed. 143, 445; Ch. on Con. 16th Am. ed. (1879) 4; Platt on Covenants, 513; Chaplain V. Canada, 8 Conn. 286.

6 Sunderland Ins. Co. V. Kearney, 16 Q. B. 925.

ject to all the limitations expressed in the deed.1 And a deed poll to C. for the benefit of D. cannot be sued on, at least according to the rule prevailing in Massachusetts and England, by D.2 - As has been already seen, it has been held in several states, that acceptance of a deed poll containing a recital that the land conveyed is subject to a mortgage, which the grantee agrees to pay, imposes a duty on the grantee to pay the mortgage and raises an implied promise on which a suit can be maintained.3