COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE. 401

of inheritance given to them by himself, or his uncle, shews what
was his understanding of the plaintiff's promise at the time it was
made to him; and that in the " desire and expectation," expressed
in his will, he alluded to a provision having the nature and extent
of the others there made or spoken of, and not merely a fettered
donation, or an estate for life only. Hence, all circumstances
considered, I have come to the conclusion, that the promise
was made by the plaintiff, and to the extent alleged by tho
defendant.

To constitute a valid contract, the performance of which may be
enforced either at law or in equity, it must be founded on a sufficient
consideration. That is, the moving cause of the contract must be
some benefit to the person called on to comply with it; or a benefit
to a stranger; or some damage or loss sustained by the party
claiming the performance; which benefit or loss has accrued or
happened at the request or instance of the party of whom the
claim is made.(s) Upon a mere naked pact or agreement, not
founded on any such consideration, no suit, according to our law,
can be sustained either at law or in equity. In the case under
consideration, the defendant, it is shewn, did sustain a loss by
reason of the promise of the plaintiff.

This promise, however, was not made by the plaintiff to the
defendant; and yet it is, in general, essential to the nature of a
consideration, that it should move from the party asking a perform-
ance of the contract: for if such party is a mere stranger to the
consideration, having himself sustained no loss, nor conferred any
benefit on the opposite party, he himself has no claim to have such
contract fulfilled. But a father is under a natural obligation to
provide for his children; and therefore, a promise made to him for
their benefit, as in this instance, may well extend to them. As
where a father was about to cut ,£1000 worth of timber to raise a
portion for his daughter, the heir promised him, that if he would
forbear from felling the timber, he, the heir, would pay the daughter
£1000. The father did abstain, in consequence thereof, from
cutting the timber, and died. It was held, that the contract with
the father enured to the benefit of the daughter, was founded on a
sufficient consideration, and that the daughter might sustain an
action upon it against the heir, and recover.(t)

(s) Bunn v. Guy, 4 East, 194; Violett v. Patton, 5 Cran. 150.—(Q Dutton v.Poole,
1 Vent. 318; Martyn v. Hind, Cowp. 443.

51