*in equity as a declaration of trust, and an author- ization to the assignee to reduce the interest to posses-sion.(f) But if the assignee be a mere nominal holder, without interest in the thing assigned, then the suit should be brought, even in equity, in the name of the party in interest. (f)

The fraudulent intent of the assignor will, generally, defeat the assignment, although the assignee is innocent. (ff)1

There are assignments of choses in action which will not be sustained either in equity or at law, as being against public policy.2 As by an officer in the army or navy, of his pay, (g) or new, at least in the broad extent in which it is laid down; and does not seem to have been generally adopted in America. On the contrary, the more general principle established in this country seems to he, that, wherever an assignee has an equitable right or interest in a debt, or other property (as the assignee of a debt certainly has), there a court of equity is the proper forum to enforce it; and he is not to he driven to any circuity by instituting a suit at law in the name of the person who is possessed of the legal title." He cites no case, however, which appears to conflict with Hammond v. Messenger, except the case of Towns-end v. Carpenter, 11 Ohio, 21. That case does not indeed decide that the mere fact of one's being an assignee of a chose in action will entitle him to enforce his claim in equity. The learned judge, however, does not cite any case in support of his position, and he appears not to have been aware of the weight of authority against him; for he says he knows of no case except Moseley v. Boush, cited above, " where it has been held that a court of law, having once declined jurisdiction of a particular subject-matter, and afterwards in an indirect manner entertained it, that a Court of Chancery, to which it appropriately and originally belonged, is therefore deprived of it." The case of the Ontario Bank v. Mumford, cited above, which was decided since Story's Equity was published, contains a thorough discussion of this subject. The counsel for the plaintiff relied upon Story's Equity, but Chancellor Wal-worth, having cited" with approbation the case of Hammond v. Messenger and several of the other cases referred to in this note, reaffirmed to its full extent the doctrine which they contain. "As a general rule," says he, " this court will not entertain a suit brought b\ the assignee of a debt, or of a chose in action, which is a mere legal demand; hut will leave him to his remedy at law by a suit in the name of the assignor. Where, however special circumstances render it necessary for the assignee to come into a court of equity for relief, to prevent a failure of justice, he will be allowed to bring a suit here upon a mere legal demand." Such must undoubtedly be considered the true rule upon the subject. In California, by statute, "the assignee of a non-negotiable note has a right of action not only against his immediate assignor, but also against previous assignors, in short, against every person from whom the note has passed by assignment." Hamilton v. McDonald, 18 Cal. 128. See also Kendall v. United States, 7 Wallace, 113; Moore v. Lowrey, 25 Ia. 3.36.

(e) Co. Lit. 232 b, n. (1); Morrison v. Deaderick, 10 Humph. 342.

(f) Field v. Maghee, .5 Paige, 539; Rogers v. Traders' insurance Co. 6 Paige, 583.

(ff) Flanigan v. Lampman, 12 Mich. 58.

(g) Stone v. Lidderdale, 2 Anst. 533; McCarthy v. Goold, 1 Ball & B. 387; Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 1 Swanst. 74; Flarty v. Odlum, 3 T. R. 681: Gren-fell v. Dean and Canons of Windsor, 2 Beav. 544; Jenkins v. Hooker, 19 Barb. 435.

1 That the assignee of a non-negotiable certificate, indorsed in blank by the owner, may write an absolute assignment over the indorsement, and by a sale of it for value, cut off the rights of the owner, see Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 1 . S 572. - K.

2 The general principle that a public officer cannot assign the future salary of his office as against public policy, is laid down in Bliss v. Lawrence, 58 N. Y. 442, which was the case of a clerk in the United States Treasury Department in the city of New York. - The assignment of a life insurance policy to a person having no insurable interest in the life insured, was held invalid in Warnock v. Davis, lot U. S. 775. But see Vol. II., p. n. - K.

his commission, (h) or the salaries of judges, (i) or of a mere right to file a bill in equity for a fraud, (j) or a right of action for an injury to the person, an action for which dies with the person. (k) But a judgment in such action may be assigned, and claims for torts to property. (kk) But after the conversion of a chattel, the owner may sell it so as to give the purchaser a right to claim it of the wrong-doer. (l)

A mere right of entry for condition broken has been held not assignable. (ll)

Courts of law also permit and protect assignments of choses in action, to a certain extent. (m)1 If the debtor assent to the assignment, and promise to pay the assignee, an action may be brought by the assignee in his own name, (n) but otherwise he

(h) Collyer v. Fallon, Turn. & R. 459.

(i) Lord Kenyon, Flarty v. Odium, 3 T. R. 681. But it seems a city officer may lawfully make an assignment of his salary yet to grow due, so as to prevent its attachment upon a trustee process. Brackett v. Blake, 7 Met. 335. And see State Bank v. Hastings, 15 Wis. 75.

(j) Prosser v. Edmonds, 1 Y. & Col. 481; Morrison v. Deaderick, 10 Humph. 342.

(k) Gardner v. Adams, 12 Wend. 297; Thurman v. Wells, 18 Barb. 500; Cook v. Newman, 8 How. Pr. 523. " In general it may be affirmed that mere personal torts, which die with the party, and do not survive to his personal representative, are not capable of passing by assignment; and that vested rights ad rem and in re, possibilities coupled with an interest, and claims growing out of and adhering to property, may pass by assignment. Story, J., Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 213; Lazard v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 173.