The early common law was very reluctant to permit the assignment of rights of action. Objection was indeed raised on the ground of maintenance to the assignment of any choses in action,20 and for the same reason the law forbade the transfer of title to real estate which was in the possession of a third person and for which, therefore, an action must be brought. So far as concerns the assignment of ordinary choses in action, for any other consideration than a share of the proceeds, or to any one other than an attorney, the law has outgrown its former attitude, even though the claim is litigious.21 But the transfer of a claim in litigation or for the collection of which litigation is necessary, in consideration of a promised share of the proceeds of the litigation, is generally held invalid.22 And a speculative purchase of a right of action by an attorney, especially if made from a client will be closely scrutinized, and certainly if unfair in its terms is invalid.23 The law concern-
119 S. W. 576; Bigelow v. Old Dominion Ac. Co., 74 N. J. Eq. 457, 71 Ati. 153; Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N. C. 71, 63 S. E. 172, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 203; Joseph Mazzini Soc. v. Corgiat, 63 Wash. 273, 115 Pac. 93.
19 Graham v. McReynolds, 90 Tenn. 673, 18 S. W. 272.
19a The interest of relationship was held sufficient in Anderson v. Anderson, 12 Ga. App. 706, 78 S. E. 271. But see Meloche v. Dequire, 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 24.
20 See supra, Sec.405.
21 Traer v. Clews, 115 U. S. 528, 29 L. Ed. 467, 6 S. Ct. Rep. 155; Edmunds v. Illinois Central R., 80 Fed. 78; Mud Valley Oil & Gas Co. v. Hitchcock, 40 Ind. App. 105, 81 N. E. Ill; Rogers v. Hendrick, 85 Conn. 260, 271, 82 Atl. 586, 590; Clark v. Grosh, 81 N. Y. Misc. 40, 142 N. Y. 8.
966; National Val. Bank v. Hancock, 100 Va. 101, 40 S. E. 611, 57 L. R. A. 728, 93 Am. St. Rep. 933; Weed v. Foster, 58 Wash. 675, 109 Pac. 123. For the limitations in Louisiana on the effect of a transfer of litigious claims, see Bluefields S. S. Co. p. Lala Ferreras Ac. Co., 133 La. 424,63 So. 96.
22 Glegg v. Bromley, [19121 3 K. B. 474; Keiper v. Miller, 68 Fed. 627; The Clara A Mclntyre, 94 Fed. 552; Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 70 N. W. 806, 64 Am. St. Rep. 456; Hudson v. Sheafe (S. Dak.), 171 N. W. 320; Hamilton v. Gray, 67 Vt. 233, 31 AtL 315, 48 Am. St. Rep. 811; Colville v. Small, 22 Ont. L. Rep. 33,426,19 Ann. Cas. 515, and see supra, Sec. 1712. But see Guy v. Churchill, 40 Ch. D. 481; Mud Valley Oil & Gas Co. v. Hitchcock, 40 Ind. App. 105, 81 N. E. 111.
23 In Sampliner v. Motion Picture ing the right to make a conveyance of land held adversely varies widely at the present day in the different States. In many of them the old law forbidding such a conveyance has been abrogated but in others it still persists.24