Equity permits the assignment of certain contracts subject to certain conditions. As a rule, however, the assignee of a chose in action must seek his remedy at law, by an action in the name of his assignor, and cannot, merely because his interest is an equitable one, bring a suit in equity for the recovery of his demand.57 "A court of equity will not entertain a bill by the assignee of a strictly legal right, merely because he cannot bring an action at law in his own name, nor unless it appears that the assignor prevents and prohibits such an action from being brought in his name, or that an action so brought would not afford an adequate remedy at law." 58

58 Liversidge v. Broadbent, 4 Hurl. & N. 603. See "Contracts" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 240; Cent. Dig. § 1125.

54 Leake, Cont. 605; Master v. Miller, 4 Term R. 341; Skinner v. Somes, 14 Mass. 107. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 48-52; Cent. Dig. §§ 88-111, 133.

55 Price v. Seaman, 4 Barn. & C. 525. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 48 -52; Cent. Dig. §§ 88-111, 133.

56 Morton v. Burn, 7 Adol. & E. 19; Fenner v. Mears, 2 W. Bl. 1209; Skinner v. Somes, 14 Mass. 107; Crocker v. Whitney, 10 Mass. 316; Jessel v. Insurance Co., 3 Hill (N. Y.) 88; Compton v. Jones, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 13; Onion v. Paul, 1 Har. & J. (Md.) 114. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 48-52; Cent. Dig. §§ 88-111, 133.

57 CARTER v. INSURANCE CO., 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 463, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 326; Hayward v. Andrews. 106 U. S. 672, 1 Sup. Ct 544, 27 L. Ed. 271; New York Guaranty & Indemnity Co. v. Water Co., 107 U. S. 205, 2 Sup. Ct. 279, 27 L. Ed. 484; Adair v. Winchester, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 114; Smiley v. Bell, Mart. & Y. (Tenn.) 378, 17 Am. Dec. 813; Moseley v. Boush, 4 Rand. (Va.) 392. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) % 120; Cent. Dig. (§ 206-209; "Contracts," Cent. Dig. § 1595.

58Walker v. Brooks, 125 Mass. 241. See Smith V. Bates Machine Co., 182

When, however, a suit in equity is maintainable, it may be maintained by the assignee in his own name.

As we shall presently see, there are statutes in most of the states authorizing the assignment of choses in action, so as to give the assignee a right to sue at law in his own name. Where the statute is general, or does not provide otherwise, it is held that it allows such assignments at law as were formerly allowed in equity, and leaves them subject at law to the same rules as governed them in equity. What we shall now say, therefore, in regard to assignments in equity, will generally apply to assignments at law authorized by these statutes.

Same - What Is Assignable

It may be said generally that anything which directly or indirectly involves a right of property is assignable,59 with the exception that rights when coupled with liabilities under an executory contract for personal, services, or under contracts otherwise involving personal credit, trust, or confidence cannot be assigned.60 Such tract for the sale of goods on credit cannot be assigned by the vendee without the vendor's consent. ARKANSAS VALLEY SMELTING CO. v. BELDEN MIN. CO., 127 U. S. 379, 8 Sup. Ct. 1308, 32 L. Ed. 246, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 320. "When rights arising out of contract are coupled with obligations to be performed by the contractor, and involve such a relation of personal confidence that it must have been intended that the rights should be exercised, and the obligations performed, by him alone, the contract, including both his rights and his obligations, cannot be assigned without the consent of the other party to the original contract." Board of Com'rs of Delaware County v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co., 133 U. S. 473, 10 Sup. Ct. 399, 33 L Ed. 674, per Gray, J. And see Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 634, 12 Sup. Ct 696, 38 L. Ed. 578. A building or construction contract is not assignable where it is made in reliance on the personal skill or experience of the contractor. Johnson v. Vickers, 139 Wis. 145, 120 N. W. 837, 21 L R. A. (N. S.) 359, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1046; but if not so made, is assignable, Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 240. If the contract prohibits assignment, an assignee succeeds to no rights. Mueller v. Northwestern University, 195 111. 263, 63 N. E. 110, 88 Am. St Rep. 194; De Vita v. Loprete, 77 N. J. Eq. 533, 77 Atl. 536, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 362, and note. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 18, 19; Cent. Dig. §§ 25-31.

111. 166, 55 N. E. 69. See "Equity," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 46; Cent. Dig. §§ 151-163.

59 Mulhall v. Quinn, 1 Gray (Mass.) 105, 61 Am. Dec. 414; Harbord v. Cooper, 43 Minn. 466, 45 N. W. 860; Dayton v. Fargo, 45 Mich. 153, 7 N. W. 758; Grant v. Ludlow, 8 Ohio St. 1; Burkett v. Moses, 11 Rich. (S. C.) 432; Louisville R. Co. v. Goodbar, 8S Ind. 213; La Rue v. Groezinger, 84 Cal. 281, 24 Pac. 42, 45, 18 Am. St. Rep. 179; Francisco v. Smith, 143 N. Y. 488, 3S N. E. 980; Up River Ice Co. v. Denier, 114 Mich. 296, 72 N. W. 157, 68 Am. St. Rep. 480; Fleckenstein Bros. Co. v. Fleckenstein (N. J. Ch.) 53 Atl. 1043; Atlantic & N. C. R. Co. v. Atlantic & N. C. Co., 147 N. C. 368, 61 S. E. 185, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 223, 125 Am. St. Rep. 550, 15 Ann. Cas. 363 (quoting with approval the statement of the text from Clark on Contracts [2d Ed.] p. 364, and containing full discussion); Liberty Wall-Paper Co. v. Stoner Wall-Paper Mfg. Co., 59 App. Div. 353, 69 N. Y. Supp. 355 [affirmed 170 N. Y. 582, 63 N. E. 1119]. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 18-19; Cent. Dig. §§ 25S1.

60 Robson v. Drummond, 2 Barn. & Adol. 303; British Waggon Co. v. Lea, 5 Q. B. Div. 149; Jaeger's Sanjtary Woolen Supply Co. v. Walker, 77 L. T. (N. S.) 180; Bethlehem v. Annis, 40 N. H. 34, 77 Am. Dec. 700; Rappleye v. Seeder Co., 79 Iowa, 220, 44 N. W. 363, 7 L. R. A. 139; Sloan v. Williams, 138 111. 43, 27 N. E. 531, 12 L. R. A. 496; Joslyn v. Parlin, 54 Vt 670; Chapin v. Longworth, 31 Ohio St 421; Devlin v. City of New York, 63 N. Y. 8; Hardy Implement Co. v. South Bend Iron Works, 129 Mo. 222, 31 S. W. 599; Edison v. Balka, 111 Mich. 235, 69 N. W. 499; Eastern Advertising Co. v. McGow, 89 Md. 72, 42 Atl. 923; Zetterlund v. Texas Land & Coal Co., 55 Neb. 355, 75 N. W. 860; Campbell v. Board of Com'rs, 64 Kan. 376, 67 Pac. 866; Schlessing-er v. Forest Products Co., 78 N. J. Law, 637, 76 Atl. 1024, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 347,138 Am. St. Rep. 627. A contract by a publisher with an author to publish a work has been held not assignable by the publisher witbout the author's consent, because of the personal trust placed in the publisher by the author. Stevens v. Benning, 1 Kay & J. 168; Gibson v. Carruthers, 8 Mees. & W. 321, at page 343. And see Griffith v. Tower Pub. Co. [1897] 1 Ch. 21. A conthings pass to the personal representatives of the party liable or entitled, and, as we shall see, are thus assigned by operation of law; and it has been said that "the power to assign and to transmit to personal representatives are convertible propositions." 61 A person who has made a contract to render personal services cannot assign his right to render such services, but he can assign his right to receive pay for them when rendered by him;62 and so, it seems, a man can assign the money to become due under any contract.63

61 Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 N. Y. 333, 64 Am. Dec. 551; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607; Devlin v. City of New York, 63 N. Y. 8; Edmunds v. Illinois Cent. Ry. (C. C.) 80 Fed. 78. But see dictum in ARKANSAS VALLEY SMELTING CO. v. BELDEN MIN. CO., 127 U. S. 379, 8 Sup. Ct. 1308, 32 L. Ed. 246, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 320. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 18,19; Cent. Dig. §§ 25-31.

62 Rodijkeit v. Andrews, 74 Ohio St 104, 77 N. E. 747, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 564, 6 Ann. Cas. 761; Leitch v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 95 Minn. 35, 103 N. W. 704, 5 Ann. Cas. 63; Chicago, B. & I. R. Co. v.Provolt, 42 Colo. 103, 93 Pac. 1126, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 587. By statute in some states assignments of future wages are either absolutely void, or are void unless accepted by the employer and recorded. Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 200 Mass. 482, 86 N. E. 916, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 746, 128 Am. St. Rep. 446. One not under contract or existing employment cannot, at law, make a valid assignment of wages he may earn in the future. It is the mere possibility of a subsequent acquisition of property, which is too uncertain to be the basis of assignment Mulhall v. Quinn, 1 Gray (Mass.) 105, 61 Am. Dec. 414; Hamilton v. Rogers, 8 Md. 301; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Woodring, 116 Pa. 513, 9 Atl. 58; O'Keefe v. Allen, 20 R. I. 414, 39 Atl. 752, 78 Am. St Rep. 884. For assignment of salary by a public ofiicer, see ante, p. 354. See "Assignments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 18, 19; Cent. Dig. §§ 25-31.

63 Devlin v. City of New York, 63 N. Y. 8; Thayer v. Kelley, 28 Vt 19, 65 Am. Dec. 220; Weed v. Jewett, 2 Metc. (Mass.) 608, 37 Am. Dec. 115; Bracket*