224 N.Y. 233, 120 N.E. 639 (1918)
Judge Beman and his wife were advanced in years. Mrs. Beman was about to die. She had a small estate consisting of a house and lot in Malone and little else. Judge Beman drew his wife’s will according to her instructions. It gave $1,000 to plaintiff, $500 to one sister, plaintiff’s mother, and $100 each to another sister and her son, the use of the house to her husband for life, remainder to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She named her husband as residuary legatee and executor. Plaintiff was her niece, thirty-four years old, in ill health, sometimes a member of the Beman household.1
When the will was read to Mrs. Beman she said that it was not as she wanted it; she wanted to leave the house to plaintiff. She had no other objection to the will, but her strength was waning and although the judge offered to write another will for her, she said she was afraid she would not hold out long enough to enable her to sign it. So the judge said if she would sign the will he would leave plaintiff enough in his will to make up the difference.2 He avouched the promise by his uplifted hand with all solemnity and his wife then executed the will.3
When he came to die it was found that his will made no provision for the plaintiff.4
This action was brought and plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court on the theory that Beman had obtained property from his wife and induced her to execute the will in the form prepared by him by his promise to give plaintiff $6,000, the value of the house.5
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment by a return to the general doctrine laid down in Lawrence v. Fox. The Court of Appeals of New York granted review and affirmed the judgment.6
Whether a third person for whose direct benefit a contract was made may maintain an action to enforce it?7
The right of the beneficiary to sue on a contract made expressly for his benefit has been fully recognized in many American jurisdictions.8 In New York the right of the beneficiary to sue on contracts made for his benefit is not clearly or simply defined.9 It is at present confined, first, to cases where there is a pecuniary obligation running from the promisee to the beneficiary.10 Secondly, to cases where the contract is made for the benefit of the wife, affianced wife, or child of a party to the contract.11
Yes. Although the general rule required privity between a plaintiff and a defendant to maintain an action on the contract, the court recognized that the desire of the childless aunt to make provision for a beloved and favorite niece differs imperceptibly in law or in equity from the moral duty of the parent to make testamentary provision for a child.1213 In this case Judge Beman promised his wife to leave plaintiff enough in his will to make up the difference if she signed the will as prepared, and the wife executed the will.1415 The contract was made for the plaintiff’s benefit.16
She alone is substantially damaged by its breach, and the representatives of the wife’s estate have no interest in enforcing it specifically.17 Therefore the plaintiff may enforce the contract made for her benefit.1819
A third person for whose direct benefit a contract was made may maintain an action to enforce it.20
Whether a promise by a husband to his wife to make a testamentary provision for her niece is enforceable by the niece when supported by the wife's execution of her will?21
Yes. When the will was read to Mrs. Beman she said that it was not as she wanted it because she wanted to leave the house to plaintiff.24 Although her strength was waning, the judge promised that if she would sign the will he would leave plaintiff enough in his will to make up the difference, and she executed the will in reliance on that promise.25 Upon Judge Beman’s death without provision for the plaintiff, the promise by a husband to his wife to make a testamentary provision for her niece is enforceable by the niece when supported by the wife's execution of her will.2627
The equities are with the plaintiff and they may be enforced in this action, whether it be regarded as an action for damages or an action for specific performance to convert the defendants into trustees for plaintiff’s benefit under the agreement.
The promise by a husband to his wife to make a testamentary provision for her niece is enforceable by the niece when supported by the wife's execution of her will.