Summary

Cragin v. Lovell — Opinion of the Court

It is quite clear that the bill in equity was rightly dismissed, because it contains no allegation that Cragin did not know, before the judgment against him in the suit at law, that the plaintiff in that suit alleged that he was a citizen of Louisiana. If he did then know it, he should have appeared and pleaded in abatement; and equity will not relieve him from the consequence of his own negligence. Jones v. League, 18 How. 76; Crim v. Handley, 94 U.S. 652. The decree in the suit in equity must therefore be affirmed. But it is equally clear that the judgment at law is erroneous.
Source: Wikisource

Cragin v. Lovell — Opinion of the Court

Notes
↑ 'A person may also, in his own name, make some advantage for a third person the condition or consideration of a commutative contract or onerous donation; and if such third person consents to avail himself of the advantage stipulated in his favor, the contract cannot be revoked.' Louisiana Civil Code of 1870, art. 1890. 'An equitable action is that which does not immediately arise from a contract, but from equity in favor of a third person, not a party to it, and for whose benefit certain stipulations have been made
Source: Wikisource

Cragin v. Lovell — Opinion of the Court

If this amounted to a promise to any one, it was not a promise to the plaintiff, nor even a promise to Fisk to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the notes, but it was, at the utmost, a promise to Fisk to pay that amount to him, or to indemnify him in case he should have to pay it. It is therefore not within the provisions of the Louisiana Codes, cited in argument; [1] and the defendant is liable to an action at law by Fisk only, and not by the plaintiff. Nat.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature