Same - Form Of Assignment

No particular form for an assignment is necessary, unless it is required by statute., In the absence of a statute an equitable assignment may be made without any deed or writing, by any words or acts showing a clear intention to assign.66 An order made by a creditor on his debtor to pay the debt to another would amount to an equitable assignment of the debt to the person in whose favor it is made or to whom it is given.67 An assignment may be conditional, or as security, as well as absolute.68

By statute in some of the states, allowing assignments of choses in action at law, and suit by the assignee in his own name, it is required that the assignment shall be in writing, signed by the assignor or his agent. If it is not in such a form, it is only an equitable assignment, and suit, if in the assignee's name, must be brought in equity, or, if suit is brought at law, it must be in the name of the assignor.69

435; Risley v. Bank, S3 N. Y. 318, at page 329, 38 Am. Rep. 421; Daniels v. Meinhard, 53 Ga. 359; Fordyce v. Nelson, 91 Ind. 447; Harris Co. v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 22, 3 S. W. 243, 2 Am. St. Rep. 467; Etheridge v. Vernoy, 74 N. C. 800; Bower v. Stone Co., 30 N. J. Eq. 171; County of Des Moines v. Hink-ley, 62 Iowa, 637, 17 N. W. 915; Schilling v. Mullen, 55 Minn. 122, 56 N. W. 586, 43 Am. St Rep. 475; Warren v. Bank, 149 111. 9, 38 N. E. 122, 25 L. R. A. 746; The Elmbank (D. C.) 72 Fed. 610; Chambers v. Lancaster, 160 N. Y. 342, 54 N. E. 707. Contra, Burnett v. Crandall, 63 Mo. 410; Gardner v. Smith, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 256. Some cases maintain that consent of the debtor is necessary even in equity. Story, J., in Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277, 5 L. Ed. 87. See James v. Newton, 142 Mass. 366, 8 N. E. 122, 56 Am. Rep. 692; Kingsbury v. Burrill, 151 Mass. 199, 24 N. E. 36. See "Assignments" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 30, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 55-60, 121-123.

66 Leake, Cont. 603; Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. Sr. 331; Heath v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 326; Bower v. Stone Co., 30 N. J. Eq. 171; Tingle v. Fisher, 20 W. Va. 497; Shannon v. City of Hoboken, 37 N. J. Eq. 123; Crane v. Gough, 4 Md. 316; Watson v. Bagley, 12 Pa. 164, 51 Am. Dec. 595; Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 13, 100 Am. Dec. 247; Tone v. Shankland, 110 Iowa, 525, 81 N. W. 789. It is said that an assignment will not be supported unless consideration has been given by the assignee. Anson, Cont. (8th Ed.) 238. But the debtor cannot defend on the ground that the assignment was without consideration. Coe v. Hinkley, 109 Mich. 608, 67 N. W. 915; Anderson v. Rear-don, 46 Minn. 185, 48 N. W. 777; Greig v. Riordan, 99 Cal. 316, 33 Pac. 913; Forsyth v. Ryan, 17 Colo. App. 511, 68 Pac. 1055; Henderson v. Railway Co., 131 Mich. 438, 91 N. W. 630. But see Waterman v. Merrow, 94 Me. 237, 47 Atl. 157. Want of consideration may affect rights of assignee as against assignor's creditors. In re Doringh, 20 R. I. 459, 40 Atl. 4. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 31; Cent. Dig. § 61.

67 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1044; Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 285, 5 L. Ed. 87; Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518; Wilson v. Carson, 12 Md. 54. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 31, 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 61, 99.

68 Draper v. Fletcher, 26 Mich. 154; Herbstrcit v. Beckwlth, 35 Mich. 93; Gill v. Weller, 52 Md. 8; Hunting v. Emmart, 55 Md. 2G5. An assignment may be illegal and contrary to public policy (ante, pp 354, 374). See "Assignments," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. § 134.