case Lowther and his wife against kelly in a action of covenant by husband and  wife if the death of the wife puis darrein continuance be plead in abatement  the court will not quash the plea but the plaintiff may proceed by suggest the  death on the roll if a be seize of land give a letter of attorney to b to make  lease and he grant a lease to c in his own name in which c covenant to pay the  rend to a qure whether a can maintain a action of covenant against c on this  deed Com dig pleader V Mr Lowther the now plaintiff be seize of the land in  right of his wife give while he be in barbados a letter of attorney to W r  empower he to demise the land W r by virtue thereof and the power therein give  by indenture in his the say W r s own name make a lease of a house to the  defendant render rend to the plaintiff in which lease Kelly the defendant  covenant with the plaintiff to pay the rend and now in a action of covenant  bring upon this indenture by Lowther and his wife who be no party to the  indenture the breach assign be for nonpayment of rend c but the wife have die  since the last continuance the defendant plead that matter in abatement  verdict for the plaintiff and motion in arrest of judgement it be insist for  the plaintiff that the action survive by suggest the death of the wife upon  the roll and this be by virtue of the statute will c h by which it be enact  that where there be two or more plaintiff or defendant and one or more of they  shall die c the writ or action shall not abate but such death be suggest on  the roll the action shall proceed and therefore this plea in abatement ought  to be quash modern report but the court will not quash it upon a motion the  plaintiff therefore suggest this matter on the roll accord to the statute and  so proceed in the action the question upon the plead be whether the plaintiff  can maintain a action of covenant upon this indenture it be argue that he can  not because he be not a party to the deed but a mere stranger to it and the  reservation of the rend be to a stranger and so be the covenant to pay it and  such a covenant can be good to one who be no party to the deed   light a  therefore he who have a letter of attorney to act for another if he make a  lease in his own name as be do in this case such lease be void for it shall be  make in the name of he who give the power and commission to act in his behalf  see more   a and the case of frontin v small ld ray S can stram where it be  adjudge accord b it be true in a deedpoll there may be a covenant in behalf of  a three person but not in a indenture therefore where there be a covenant  between a and b that such a sum of money shall be pay to c this be not good    light roll Abr c so that this be a covenant or contract in a indenture no man  can take advantage of it but he who be a party to it the master can have a  action against the defendant for hire his servant to work with he the  defendant without show that the contract be make with he the plaintiff so  where the cattle of the master be sell by his servant and a bind take in the  servant name for payment of the money but to the use of the master and he  bring the action upon this bind it be adjudge that it will not lie cro James  see also Offley v ware lev Gill that v Copley lev d because he be no party to  the bind for he can not release it so where one Parry be indebt bourn v mason  vent e both to the plaintiff and the defendant and W r be indebt to Parry and  the defendant promise that in consideration Parry will permit he to sue the  say W r he will pay the debt due to the plaintiff and upon a action on the  case bring on this promise and non assumpsit plead the plaintiff modern report  er p have a verdict but can never get judgement because he be a stranger to  the consideration and in this case it be lie down for a rule that no person  shall recover upon a agreement but be who be party or privy to the  consideration thereof therefore where a man promise the father to pay his  daughter forty pound at or upon her marriageday and she afterward modern  report marry and the husband and wife bring the action for the forty pound it  be adjudge that it will not lie but that the father alone to who the promise  be make shall bring the action on the other side it be argue in behalf of the  plaintiff that there be no reason why a person with who a covenant be make  shall not be entitle to a action for breach thereof though he be no party to  the deed the rule of law be that no person can take a estate in prsenti unless  he be a party and yet if such interest be by way of use he may take without be  party there be many resolution in parallel case to support this action as for  instance the case Dutton v Ingram vent lev raym t Jones a which be report in  several book and be thus the plaintiff declare that his fatherinlaw be seize  in fee c and be about to sell timber to raise a portion for his daughter who  be the plaintiff wife the son and heir on who the land will descend after the  death of the father promise the father that in consideration he will forbear  to cut down the timber he the son the now defendant will pay the daughter one  thousand pound and for nonpayment of this money the action be bring by the  husband and wife and they have a verdict and judgement but upon a motion in  arrest of this judgement it be object that this action ought to have be bring  by the father to who the promise be make to which it be answer that though the  promise be make to he yet he be not concern in the meritorious act and that  there be such a nearness of relation between the father and the daughter who  the plaintiff have marry that he the plaintiff be now concern in the very  promise make to his fatherinlaw so where the father of a young woman Lenn v  hay more b promise the father of a young man that in consideration he will  settle such a jointure on her he the father will give his son two hundred  pound more upon his marriage with the daughter in this case it be adjudge that  the son though he be a stranger to the promise for that be make to his father  may bring the action because the meritorious act be do by he videlicet the  marry the daughter but in the case of mason v bourn vent c beforementioned the  plaintiff do nothing of any trouble to himself or of any benefit to the  defendant so where the defendant promise the plaintiff t raym d who be a  physician that if be perform such a cure he will give he the physician so much  money and so much to his daughter it be adjudge that the daughter may bring a  action for her money though she be a stranger to the promise and likewise to  the consideration because the nearness of modern report relation between  father and daughter give her the benefit of the consideration for her father  performance Pratt chief justice by a deed poll a man may demise to or covenant  with another person and a action lie and yet there be no party to such deed  Eyre justice every contract be make between party a letter of attorney may be  contain in a indenture without make the attorney a party because in that case  no interest passes to the attorney Adjournatur