Contract — Bond — Right of action by party not named in contract — Party to consideration — Release by natural guardian — Parent and child — Illegitimate child.
1. If a promise in a contract be to pay money to a third person, but it is in fact made for the benefit and in relief of the other party to the agreement, the third party obtains no rights under the contract.
2. If, however, the promise to pay to the third person is not for the benefit primarily of the other party to the contract, but for that of the third person himself, the latter has a legal or equitable interest in the contract which enables him to enforce his rights thereunder, even though he himself was not a party to the consideration paid to the promisor.
3. The question as to whether or not the third person is a party to the consideration, is not a conclusive factor.
4. Where a bond given by a man to the mother of his illegitimate child shows that it includes a fund for the maintenance and support of the child, the child has an interest therein, although he is not named as a party in the contract.
5. In such case the child's interest cannot be defeated by a release executed by the mother to the obligor, inasmuch as the mother had no authority merely by reason of her natural guardianship to compound or release his rights under the bond.
Argued January 6, 1925.
PER CURIAM, January 26, 1925:
We affirm the judgment in this case on the opinion of the learned court below.