DANIBLS V. CITIZei^S* INS. CO. 429 �assent oi his co trustees. Tiie sdeiety was' inSebted to Will- iam Chase, and the policy was màde payable, in case of loBS, to G. M. Chase. the church wàs destroyed by fire, the insur- ance company refused to pay the loss, and G. M. Chase, the payee in the policy, bronght suit. ' The declaration averred that William Chase, being the owner in trust for the Union Congregational church for a pfemium paid in money, effected the insuranee. The court held that the action could be main- tained for the fuU amount 6i the policy, although William Chase was but one of five trustees. �In the case of Shawmut Sugar Refining Co. v. Hampden Ins. Co. 12 Gray, 540, the policy was to P. E. Kingman and oth- ers, of Boston, on their sugars, payable in case of loss to the Shawmut Sugar Eeûning Company. The property belonged to a corporation in whioh P. |B. Kingman aiidothers were stockholders. Their only interest in the company was as stockholders. ' There was nO reformation of the policy, and the plaintiff ^ecovered, notwithstanding the familiar rule tjiat paroi evidence cannot be received to contradiety vary, or ex- plàin a. written çontract. If apolicy rûns to A. B. for whom it may poncern, or A. B. as agent or in sonje trust capacity, an action at law may be brought, in case of lossj in the name of A. B., disclosing the name of th^ real party in interest, Orby the real owner of the property. Rider v. The Ocean Ins.Co. 20Pick.259. �That being the case if a written çontract made in the name of one person, not an agent, but really for the benefit of another, from whom the consideration moves, as iu thia case, there is no good reason why the latter may not sue on it in his own name and prove by paroi evidence that the çon- tract was made for his benefit. In support of the plaintiff's right to maintain the action in his own name, see, also, Arch- angel v. Thompson, 2 Camp. 620; Thompson v. Railroad Co. 6 Wall. 137; Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 6 Ohio St. 561; Anson v. Winneshiek Ins. Co. 23 lowa, 85. �If the written çontract should be held void for the reason that Hudson & Bro., while acting for the Insurance com- pany, could not insure themselves, the defendant is equallj ����
