(e) Loosemore p. Radford, 9 M. & W. 657; Robinson v. Robinson, Q. B. 1855, 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 212; Ex parte Negus, 7

Wend. 499; Churchill p. Hunt, 3 Denio, 321; Lethbridge p. Mytton, 2 B. & Ad. 772; Port p. Jackson, 17 Johns. 239.

(f) Gilbert p. Wiirfan, 1 Comst. 550; Rodman p. Hedden, 10 Wend. 498. In Lathrop p. Atwood, 21 Conn. 117, 123, Church, C. J , said " We think an examination of the cases will show these reasonable doctrines that, if a condition, covenant, or promise be only to indemnify and save harmless a party from some consequence, no action can be sustained for the liability or exposure to loss, nor until actual damage, capable of appreciation and estimate, has been sustained by the plaintiff. But if the covenant or promise be to perform some act for the plaintiff's benefit, as well as to indemnify and save him harmless from