Sec 812

We have already seen that if B., in discharge of a contractual duty to A., so conducts himself as negligently or wilfully to injure A., he is liable to A. in damages.1 An action of tort, also, as we have seen, lies against the defendant for maliciously procuring a third person to break a contract with the defendant.2 But this must be in an action based exclusively on the tort. On the contract a third party cannot sue.3

Sec 813

By novation, as is elsewhere more fully seen, a new debtor may be grafted on an old agreement.4 Either to obtain the release of the original debtor, which by itself is a good consideration, or to obtain some benefit to the new promisor, emanating from the promisee, such a promise may be validly made.5

Action of tort may be maintained for abase of contractual relations.

By novation a new debtor may be introduced.

"quite contrary to principle," and holds that " it cannot stand with Lord Cottenham's decision in Tasker V. Small, 3 My. & Cr. 63, that in a suit for the specific performance of a contract third persons claiming an interest in the subject matter are not even proper parties." Mr. Pollock very properly adds that "even without this it is surely obvious (unless and until a court of final appeal shall think otherwise) that A. and B. have no business to submit C.'s rights to the arbitration of D."

That a company can ratify a contract made by its promoters before its organization was denied in Empress Engineering Co. in re, L. R. 16 Ch. IT. 125, overruling Spiller V. Paris Rink, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 368. " Companies have been held in equity to be bound by the agreements of their promoters, but on grounds independent of contract." Pollock, 3d ed. 119, citing Lindley, i. 363, 395; see Van Schaick V. R. R., 38 N. Y. 346.

1 Langridge V. Levy, 2 M. & W. 519; Wh. on Neg. sec 441, and cases there cited, and see supra, sec 791, where a recovery against a telegraph company by the receiver of a wrong telegram is thus sustained, and Little V. Banks, 83 N. Y. 258, cited supra, sec 786, which may be explained on the same ground.

2 Lumley V. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216; aff. Cattle V. Stockton Water Works, L. R. 10 Q. B. 458; Bowen V. Hall, L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 333; see Wald's Pollock, 188, citing Walker V. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555; Rice V. Manly, 66 N. Y. 82; Jones V. Stanley, 76 N. C. 355, and other cases.

3 Atkinson V. Water Works, L. R. 2 Ex. D. 441; Nickerson V. Hydraulic Works, 46 Conn. 24; Davis V. Water Works, 54 Iowa, 61; cited supra, sec 786. But see Little V. Banks, 83 N. Y. 258, cited supra, sec 786.

4 See sec 852 et seq.

5 See supra, sec 505.