(kk) Jordan v. Gillen, 44 N. H. 424.

(l) Hall v. Robinson, 2 Comst. 293, overruling Gardner v. Adams, so far as the latter conflicts with what is stated in the text. It will be perceived that this case furnishes no exception to the rule that a right of action for a tort cannot be assigned. It merely decides that the owner of a chattel may sell it and convey a good title to it, notwithstanding it has been wrongfully converted, and then the vendee may demand it in his own right; and, upon a refusal to deliver it, bring his action, not for the conversion done to the vendor, but for the conversion done to himself by such refusal. And see Andrews v. Bond, 16 Barb. 633; Franklin v. Neate, 13 M. & W. 481.

(ll) Warner v. Beckett, 3 Conn. 468.

(m) Bailer, J., Master v. Miller, 4 T. R. 320, 340: "It is true that formerly the courts of law did not take notice of an equity or trust; for trusts are within the original jurisdiction of a court of equity; but of late years it has been found productive of great expense to send the parties to the other side of the Hall; wherever this court have seen that the justice of the case has been clearly with the plaintiff, they have not turned him round upon this objection. Then if this court will take notice of a trust, why should they not of an equity? It is certainly true that a chose in action cannot strictly be assigned; but this court will take notice of a trust, and consider who is beneficially interested." Ashhurst, J., Winch v. Keeley, 1 T. R. 619; Dix v. Cobb, 4 Mass. 508; Welch v. Mandeville, 1 Wheat. 233; Legh v. Legh, 1 B. & P. 447; Eastman v. Wright, 6 Pick. 316, 322; Owings v. Low, 5 G. & J. 134, 145; Hickey v. Burt, 7 Taunt. 48; Graham v. Gracie, 13 Q. B. 548.

(n) Crocker v. Whitney, 10 Mass. 316; Mowry v. Todd, 12 id. 281; Barrett v. Union M. F. Ins. Co. 7 Cush. 175; Currier 'v. Hodgdon, 3 N. H. 82; Morse v. Bellows, 7 id. 549, 565; Moar v. Wright, 1 Vt. 57; Bucklin v. Ward, 7 id. 195; Hodges v. Eastman, 12 id. 358; Stiles v. Farrar, 18 id. 444; Smith v. Berry, 18 Me. 122; Warren v. Wheeler 21 id. 484; Barger v. Collins, 7 Harr. &

1 A voluntary assignment of a chose in action not affecting creditors made in good faith, is good as against a subsequent assignee for value. Putnam v. Story, 132 Mass. 205. - K.

*must bring it in the name of the assignor; (o) and this rule applies to an assignment of a negotiable bill or note, unless it be indorsed by the assignor.(p) And the action brought in the name of the assignor for the benefit of the assignee is open to all equitable defences; but only to those which are equitable. That is, the debtor may make all defences which he might have made if the suit were for the benefit of the assignor as well as in his name, provided these defences rest upon honest transactions which took place between the debtor and the assignor before the assignment, or after the assignment and before the debtor had notice or knowledge of it. (q) The same rule holds as to the equities existing between an assignor and his assignee in respect to a chose in action held for value and without notice by a subsequent assignee. The latter takes the exact position of his vendor. (r) The assignee of a non-negotiable obligation can take no rights which his assignor did not possess, and, generally, make no defences he could not make. (rr)1 The assignment of a note to which a lien is attached by way of security, carries with it, in general, the lien. (rs) 2

J. 213, 219; Clarke v. Thompson, 2 R. I. 146. Such seems to be the general ruling on this subject. But such a transaction would seem to fall within the law of novation; and the question would he as to the consideration on which the promise of the original debtor to the assignee is founded. Probably it would be held that if A holds the note of B, payable to A, and assigns this for value to C, and B assents and promises to pay C, B is by such transfer released from his promise to A, and this is a sufficient consideration to sustain his promise to C. See Ford v. Adams, 2 Barb. 349. In Tibbits v. George, 5 A. & E. 115, Lord Denman said: " None of the authorities which have been cited show that it is necessary that the assignment should be in writing in order to pass an equitable interest, although in very many of the cases there was a writing; and as to express assent, it is undoubtedly held that, in order to give an action at Iaw, the debtor must consent to the agreed transfer of the debt, and that there must be some consideration for his promise to pay it to the transferee."

(o) Jessel v. Williamsburgh Ins. Co. 3 Hill (N. Y.), 88; Usher v. De Wolfe, 13 Mass. 290; Coolidge v. Ruggles, 15 id.

387; Skinner v. Somes, 14 id. 107; Palmer v. Merrill, 6 Cush. 282. See also supra, note (m). [Unless by statute the assignee or real party in interest is allowed to sue in his own name.]

(p) Freeman v. Perry, 22 Conn. 617. See also Hedges v. Sealy, 9 Barb. 214.

(q) Mangles v. Dixon, 18 E. L. & E. 82; Bartlett v. Pearson, 29 Me. 9, 15; Guerry v. Ferryman, 6 Ga. 119; Wood v. Perry, 1 Barb. 114, 131; Commercial Bank v. Colt, 15 id. 506; Sanborn v. Little, 3 N. H. 539; Norton v. Rose, 2 Wash. (Va.) 233; Murray v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. 441; Hacket v. Martin, 8 Greenl. 77; Greene v. Darling, 5 Mason, 201, 214; Comstock v. Farnum, 2 Mass. 96; Wood v. Partridge, 11 id. 488; McJilton v. Love, 13 Ill. 486; Thompson v. Emery, 7 Foster (N. H.), 269; Faull v. Tinsman, 36 Perm. St. 108. See Patterson v. Atli-erton, 3 McLean, 147, in which a different doctrine seems to be held, but on very insufficient grounds.

(r) Bush v. Lathrop, 22 N. Y. (8 Smith) 535.

(rr) Cray v. Thomas, 18 La, An. 412.

(rs) Forwood v. Dehoney, 5 Bush, 174; Guy v. Butler, 6 Bush, 508; Perry v. Roberts, 30 Ind. 244.

1 For a learned discussion of the rights of assignees of non-negotiable choses in action, see the opinion of Dwight, C, in Union College Trustees v, Wheeler, 61 N. Y. 88. - K.

2 So an assignment by a stockholder of his shares of stock carries his proportionate

The death of the assignor will not defeat the assignment, but the assignee may bring the action in the name of the executor or administrator of the deceased. (s) If the assignment be in good faith and for valuable consideration, although the action be brought in the name of the assignor, neither his release nor his bankruptcy will defeat it. (t) A debt due for goods sold and delivered, and resting for evidence on a book account, may be so assigned, (u) or an unliquidated balance of accounts,

(v) or a contingent debt, (w)l or a judgment, (x) or a bond; but an action on a bond must be in the name of the obligee, although it be made payable expressly to " assigns. "(y) Aud it has been held that a grant of a franchise to a town, as the right of fishery, may be the subject of a legal assignment or release, and the assignee or releasee may maintain an action respecting it in his own name. (z) But a servant bound by indenture cannot be transferred or assigned by the master to another, because the master has only a personal trust. (a) 2 The right of a mortgagor to redeem his equity of redemption after the same has been taken and sold on execution, is assignable both at law and in equity. (b) The respective interests of a crew of a privateer in a prize cannot be assigned, because, by the statute of the United States, they have no right in or control over the property until it has been libelled, condemned, and sold by the marshal, and the proceeds, after all legal deductions, paid over to the prize agents. (c) 3

(s) Dawes v. Boylston, 9 'Mass. 337, 346; Cutts v. Perkins, 12 id. 206, 210.

(t) Dix v. Cobb, 4 Mass. 508, 511; Brown v. Maine Bank, 11 id. 153; Webb v. Steele, 13 N. H. 230, 236; Duncklee v. Greenfield Steam Mill Co. 3 Foster (N. H.), 245; Anderson v. Miller, 7 Sm. & M. 586; Parker v. Kelley, 10 id. 184; Winch v. Keely, 1 T. R. 619; Blin v. Pierce, 20 Vt. 25; Blake v. Buchanan, 22 Vt. 548; Parsons v. Woodward, 2 N. J. 196; Jew-ett v. Dockray, 34 Me. 45.

(u) Dix v. Cobb, 4 Mass. 508.

(v) Crocker v. Whitney, 10 Mass. 316.

(w) Cutts v. Perkins, 12 Mass. 206.

(x) Brown v. Maine Bank, 11 Mass. 153; Dunn v. Snell, 15 id. 481.

(y) Skinner v. Somes, 14 Mass. 107.

(z) Watertown v. White, 13 Mass. 477.

(a) Hall v. Gardner, 1 Mass. 172; Davis v. Coburn, 8 id. 299; Clement v. Clement, 8 N. H. 472; Graham v. Kinder, 11 B. Mon. 60. So the powers and duties of the testamentary guardian of an infant are a personal trust, which cannot be assigned. Balch v. Smith, 12 N. H. 437.

(b) Bigelow v. Willson, 4 Pick. 485.

(c) Usher v. De Wolfe, 13 Mass. 290; Alexander v. Wellington, 2 Russ. & M. 35.

share of the assets, including all undeclared dividends. Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. R. Co. 84 N. Y. 157. - K.

1 An assignment of money to become due is valid, and if the person from whom the money is to become due, after notice of the assignment, advances such money to the assignor, the assignee may recover it of him. Brice v. Bannister, 3 Q. B. D. 569. See also Philadelphia v. Lockhardt, 73 Penn. St. 211. - K.

2 A contract to keep wagons let to a railway company in repair is not an agreement for personal performance, such that it cannot be assigned and the repair of the wagons by the assignee be a sufficient performance of the contract, British Wagon Co. v. Lea, 5 Q. B. D. 149; and equally so of a contract for street-cleaning, Devlin v. Mayor, etc. of New York, 63 N. Y. 8. Compare Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co. 127 U. S. 379; Delaware County Corn's v. Diebold, etc. Co. 133 U. S. 473.

3 But a right in a sum awarded to the owner of property by his own government