Tweeddale v. Tweeddale

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1903 · Contracts

61 L.R.A. 509 (1903)

Updated July 26, 2026

ContractsThird-party beneficiariesthird-party beneficiaryprivityrescissionconsiderationdebtor-creditor relationland conveyance

Facts

Daniel Tweeddale agreed to pay the plaintiff $100 and his sister $50 as part of the consideration for property conveyed to him by his mother. Once title to the land vested in Daniel and the bond and mortgage were delivered to his mother, the agreed sums remained in Daniel's hands for payment to the plaintiff and his sister. The trial court treated the sums as gifts and focused on the beneficiaries' lack of knowledge or acceptance before the mother, with Daniel's consent, rescinded the arrangement. Mary Tweeddale later satisfied the mortgage, and Daniel conveyed the land to Paul.

Issue

When one person, for consideration received from another, promises to pay money to a third person, does the third person acquire an enforceable right immediately upon consummation of the transaction, even without knowledge or assent? If so, can the original parties later rescind or alter the promise without the third person's consent?

Rule

Where one person, for consideration moving to him from another, promises to pay a sum of money to a third person, the law immediately creates the necessary privity between promisor and third person, establishing a debtor-creditor relationship at once. The third person's right does not depend on notice, assent, or consideration from the third person, and once the liability is created, the original parties cannot rescind or modify it without the third person's consent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Madison, Wisconsin, Olivia Mercer sold a vacant lot to Noah Benton. As part of the purchase price, Noah promised Olivia that he would pay $8,000 to Olivia's nephew, Ethan Mercer, and the deed closed that afternoon. Ethan had no idea the deal had been made until two weeks later.

If Ethan sues Noah for the $8,000, which is the best answer?

Explanation. Where one person, for consideration moving from another, promises to pay money to a third person, the law immediately creates the necessary privity between promisor and third person upon consummation of the transaction. The third person's right does not depend on notice, assent, or consideration from the third person. It also does not matter that the payment may have been intended as a gift rather than satisfaction of a debt.