## Facts

- Mrs. Beman, seriously ill, directed her husband, Judge Beman, to draft her will disposing of a small estate including a house and lot.
- The will as prepared gave modest cash bequests to relatives, granted Judge Beman a life estate in the house, and left the remainder to a charitable organization.
- After hearing the will read, Mrs. Beman stated she wanted the house to pass to her niece, Marion Seaver, after her husband’s life estate rather than to the charity.
- Because she was too weak to execute a new will, Judge Beman promised that if she signed the existing will he would, by his own will, leave Seaver enough to make up the difference—effectively an amount equal to the home’s value.
- Relying on that promise, Mrs. Beman signed the will and died soon thereafter.
- Judge Beman later died without providing for Seaver in his will.
- Seaver sued the executors of Judge Beman’s estate to enforce the promise; the value of the house was fixed at $6,000.

## Issues

1. Whether an intended third-party beneficiary may sue to enforce a contract made between others for her direct benefit, despite lack of privity and without furnishing consideration.
2. Whether equitable enforcement against the promisor’s estate is proper where the promise induced execution of a will the promisee otherwise would have changed.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Seaver.
- The court held that a third person for whose direct benefit a contract was intended may enforce it.
- The court treated Seaver as an intended (donee) beneficiary of Judge Beman’s promise to Mrs. Beman.
- The court upheld relief against Judge Beman’s estate in an amount equal to the promised benefit (the value of the home).

## Legal Principles

- Although privity is the general rule in contract enforcement, an intended third-party beneficiary may sue on a contract made for the beneficiary’s direct benefit.
- A donee beneficiary may recover where the promisee intended to confer the benefit of the promised performance on the beneficiary.
- Contracts made in family and testamentary settings may be enforced against an estate when reliance and fairness require performance, including through equitable relief functionally equivalent to imposing a trust to prevent unjust retention of benefits obtained by the promise.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a husband’s promise made to his dying wife to provide by will for her niece, holding that an intended donee beneficiary may sue on a contract made for her direct benefit and that equity permits recovery against the promisor’s estate despite lack of privity.


Seaver v. Ransom, 224 N.Y. 233, 120 N.E. 639 (N.Y. 1918)