Presumably, because of the difficulties enumerated in the preceding section, Courts of Equity undertook as a branch of their jurisdiction to give, so far as possible, the effect to an assignment which the parties intended.15 As will be seen equity did not go so far as to treat the assignee as a true successor, like an assignee in bankruptcy, but they found it possible in effect to enforce specifically a covenant on the part of the assignor not to revoke the power given to the assignee, and indeed without the aid of a covenant against revocation or of any power of attorney other than that necessarily implied from the assignment itself, to hold that the assignee had an irrevocable right, commensurate with that which the parties contemplated, in any controversy between the parties themselves or with those in similar position. Accordingly, Courts of Equity held that an assignee for value 16 would be protected

14This was stalled to be the law in 1669 in Backwell v. Litcott, 2 Keb. 331.

15 Probably the jurisdiction of equity to protect assignments of future interests in property not recognised as estates by the Common Law, as shown by Warmatrey v. Taufield, 1 Rep. in Ch. 18 (1629); Goring v. Bickerstafl, 1 Cos. in Ch. 4, 8 (1663); led to the protection of assignments of chosen in action, as in Corderoy's Case, Freeman, 312 (1676); Anonymous, Freeman's Ch. 145 (1676); Fashion v. Atwood, 2 Cas. in Ch. 36 (1680).

16 In Corderoy's Case, Freeman, 312, Finch, L. K., held that though a note there in question "is not assignable in law, yet it is in equity, when there is a valuable consideration;" and in Anonymous, Freeman, Ch. 145, it is said, Bridgman, L. K., would not protect a voluntary assignment of any chose in against any person except one who had in good faith and for value reduced to possession the chose in action. Therefore, equity preferred the assignee of a chose in action over a creditor of the assignor who subsequently garnished the debtor as a means of collecting his claim against the assignor.17 Equity also held that the assignee would be protected in his right as against an assignee in a subsequent bankruptcy of the assignor;18 and at the end of the eighteenth century the same decisions was made by a court of law,19 which held that it would take notice of the doctrines of equity in regard to assignments and apply them. At the present time so fully have courts of law adopted the principle that assignment of choses in action will be protected, that where an absolute and total assignment of a chose in action is made, application to a court of chancery is not often necessary; and where the assignee has an adequate remedy at law, equity will not take jurisdiction to enforce his rights.20 The power given to an assignee to collect and keep the proceeds of the claim assigned, being wholly for the interest of the assignee may be delegated by him to another, and a sub-assignment is protected as fully as the original assignment.21 action. Though this requirement of value seems originally to have been aimed at maintenance, see supra, i 406, it persisted in courts of equity after they had ceased to be troubled by the thought of maintenance.

17 Corderoy's Case, Freeman, 312.

18 Peters v. Soame, 2 Vernon, 428; Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. Sr. 331.

19 Winch v. Keeley, 1 T. R. 619.

20Cator v. Burke, 1 Brown's Ch. Cas. 434; Hayward p. Andrews, 106 U. S. 672, 27 L. Ed. 271,1 8. Ct. 644, aff'g 12 Fed. 786; New York Guaranty, etc., Co. p. Memphis Water Co., 107 U. 8. 205, 27 L. Ed. 484, 2 S Ct. 279; Glenn p. Marbury, 145 U. S. 499, 36 L. Ed. 790, 12 S. Ct. 914; Adair v. Winchester, 7 G. 4 J. 114. Walter v. Brooks, 126 Mass. 241;

Ontario Bank v. Mumford, 2 Barb. Ch. 596; Smiley v. Bell, Mart. & Yerg. 378, 17 Am. Dec. 813; Moseley p. Boush, 4 Rand. 392.

21 Sutherland P. Reeve, 151 111. 384, 38 N. E. 130; Dawes p. Boylston, 9 Mass. 337, 346, 6 Am. Dec. 72; Dexter p. Meigs, 47 N. J. Eq. 488, 21 Atl. 114; Bank of Spring City p. Rhea County (Tean.Ch.),598. W.442. The results reached in the civil law are substantially the same as in the English and American law (see the German Civ. Code, {J 398-413, and the new Swiss Code of Obligations) though as the division of rights into legal and equitable is peculiar to the Common Law, the qualified ownership of the assignee is not stated in the same way.