No particular form of words is necessary to assign a contract unless some statute provides therefor. Any language or conduct which shows the intention of the assignor to transfer his interest in the contract to the assignee is sufficient.1 To constitute an assignment, however, it must be the intention of the assignor to pass control over the contract or the fruits thereof to the assignee.2 A mere agreement to pay out of particular fund which does not give the promisee any right to control the fund or any part of the fund is not an assignment3 Even a transaction which purports to be an assignment is not such in legal effect if its effect is to leave the assignor in control of the contract assigned.4 Thus an agreement by a client to pay his attorney a certain per cent of the amount recovered is not an assignment to the attorney of such per cent of the claim.5 If such a contract show an intention on the part of the client to pass an interest in the subject of the litigation to the attorney it operates as an assignment.6 So an agreement to deliver a certain number of bonds out of an issue to be made thereafter is not an assignment of any part of such issue.7 On the other hand, a transaction whereby one party transfers to another ownership and control of a chose in action amounts to an assignment.8 Thus an agreement by a mortgagor who is effecting a new loan to take up a pre-existing mortgage that the subsequent mortgagee shall pay the proceeds directly to the first mortgagee operates as an assignment.9 So an agreement between the next of kin that the administrator should make an equal division of the proceeds of a benefit certificate, made before it was known who was the beneficiary, operates as an assignment.10 So does an arrangement between a mortgagor, his agent and a mortgagee whereby the mortgagor instructs the agent to pay the rents of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, and the agent opens an account charging himself in favor of the mortgagee for the rent when collected.11 To effect an assignment of a fund, therefore, the fund to be assigned must be identified with sufficient certainty. An order addressed to a debtor ordering payment out of the amount due from him to the drawer is sufficient where there is but one fund thus owing.12 So an order on a village to pay and "charge the same to our account" on a specified street is sufficient where given by contractors who are to be paid only out of special assessments.13 So an assignment of a contractor's interest in assessments on specified lots stated to be owned by a specified person is sufficient, though the assessment is made as against an unknown owner.1* So a written promise to pay a given person, addressed the city treasurer, is a sufficient assignment of the amount due the promisor.15 So an order for a certain sum is sufficient as an assignment where only one claim is due from the debtor, the amount of which is substantially that named in the assignment.16 So a valid partial assignment in equity must indicate the portion of the fund assigned.17

1 Comfort v. Betts (1891), 1 Q. B. 737; Greig v. Riordan, 99 Cal. 316; 33 Pae. 913; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Fuller, 61 Conn. 252; 29 Am. St. Rep. 196; 23 Atl. 193; Kandler v. Sharp, 36 la. 232; Brown v. Stoerkel, 74 Mich. 269; 3 L. R. A. 430; 41 N. W. 921; Jackson v. Sevatson, 79 Minn. 275; 82 N. W. 634; Anderson v. Reardon, 46 Minn. 185; 48 N. W. 777; Allen v. Brown, 44 N. Y. 228; Falconio v. Larsen, 31 Or. 137; 37 L. R. A. 254; 48 Pac. 703; Sloan v. Woodward, 25 Or. 223; 35 Pac. 450: Citizens' Bank v. Corkings, 9 S. D. 614; 62 Am. St. Rep. 891; 70 X. W. 1059; Wines v. Ry., 9 Utah, 228; 33 Pac. 1042; Chase v. Dodge, 111 Wis. 70; 86 N. W. 548.

2 Chase v. Dodge, 111 Wis. 70 86 N. W. 548.

3 Citizens' Bank v. Corkings, 9 S. D. 614; 62 Am. St. Rep. 891; 70 X. W. 1059.

4 Works v. Merrit, 105 Cal. 467; 38 Pac. 1109.

5 Gaffney v. Tammany, 72 Conn. 701; 46 Atl. 156; Stewart v. Price, 64 Kan. 191; 67 Pac. 553; Water, man v. Merrow, 94 Me. 237; 47 Atl. 157; Brown v. Ginn, 66 O. S. 316; 64 X. E. 123.

1 Clarkson v. Louderbach, 36 Fla. 660; 19 So. 887; Savage v. Gregg, 150 I11. 161; 37 X. E. 312; Smith v. Meyer, 84 Minn. 455; 87 X. W. 1122; Macklin v. Kinealy, 141 Mo. 113; 41 S. W. 893; McConaughey v. Bennett. 50 W. Va. 172; 40 S. E. 540; Bentley v. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729: 23 S. E. 584.

2 Smith v. Meyer, 84 Minn. 455; 87 X. W. 1122; Weaver v. Roofing Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 547; 40 Atl. 858. "To constitute an equitable assignment there must be an assignment or transfer of the fund or some definite portion of it so that the person owing the debt or holding the fund on which the order is drawn can safely pay the order, and is com-pellable to do so, though forbidden by the drawer." Hicks v. Brick Co., 94 Va. 741, 745; 27 S. E. 596.

3 Christmas v. .Russell, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 69; Maier v. Freeman, 112 Cal. 8; 53 Am. St. Rep. 151; 44 Pac. 357; Ford v. Garner, 15 Ind. 298; People's Bank v. Barbour (Ky.), 19 S. W. 585; Morse v. Allen, 99 Mich. 303; 58 N. W. 327; Hale v. Dressen 76 Minn. 183; 78 N. W. 1045; Atchison County Bank v. Durfee, 118 Mo. 431; 40 Am. St. Rep. 396; 24 S. W. 133; Pearee v. Roberts. 27 Mo. 170; Phillips v. Hogue. 63 Neb. 102: 88 X. W. 180: Fairbanks v. Welshnns. 55 Neb. 362: 75 X. W.

865; Beran v. Bank, 137 N. Y. 450; 33 X. E. 593; Christmas v. Gris-wold, 8 Ohio St. 558; Browning v. Parker, 17 R. I. 183; 20 Atl. 835.

4 Beran v. Bank, 137 X. Y. 450; 33 X. E. 593.

5 Hargett v. McCadden, 107 Ga. 773; 33 S. E. 666; Story v. Hull. 143 I11. 506; 32 N. E. 265; Tone v. Shankland, 110 la. 525; 81 X. W. 789; Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 91; 54 Pac. 413.

6 Holmes v. Evans, 129 X. Y. 140; 29 X. E. 233; Cullers v. May, 81 Tex. 110; 16 S. W. 813.

7 Cushing v. Chapman, 115 Fed. 237.

8 Clark v. Iron Co.. 81 Fed. 310; Carlyle v. Carlyle, etc., Co.. 140 I11. 445; 29 X. E. 556; Lafferty v. Hall (Ky.), 44 S. W. 426; Hurley v. Bendel, 67 Minn. 41 ; 60 X. W. 477: Second Xational Bank of Crand Forks v. Soruat. 55 Minn. 14: 56 X. W. 254: Marsh v. Garney. 69 N. H. 236: 45 Atl. 745; Spott's Es-tata, 156, Pa. St. 281; 27 Atl. 132;

(Supreme Assembly, etc.) Good Fellows v. Campbell, 17 E. I. 402; 13 L. R. A. 601; 22 Atl. 307; Baillie v. Stephenson, 95 Wis. 500; 70 N. W. 660.

9 Leonard v. Marshall, 82 Fed. 396.

10 (Supreme Assembly, etc.) Good Fellows v. Campbell, 17 R. I. 402; 13 L. R. A. 601; 22 Atl. 307.

11 Baillie v. Stephenson, 95 Wis. 500; 70 N. W. 660. But in In re Cleary, 9 Wash. 605; 38 Pac. 79. a similar transaction was held not to amount to an assignment of uncollected rents.

12 Bank v. Gibson, 21 Ont. 613; In re Hanna, 105 Fed. 587; Harris County v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 22; 2 Am. St. Rep. 467; 3 S. W. 243.

13 Dolese v. McDougall, 182 111. 486; 55 N. E. 547.

14 Gill v. Dunham (Cal.), 34 Pac. 68. .

15 Harlow v. Bartlett, 96 Me. 294; 52 Atl. 638.

16 Jenness v. Wharff, 87 Me. 307; 32 Atl. 908.