Not all rights under contracts may be assigned. The difficulty standing in the way may be either: (1) that the nature of the right is defined or limited by the personality of the original promisee or, (2), that public policy forbids assignment of the right. The first difficulty is illustrated by rights to have services rendered to the promisee which would vary in character if performance were rendered to any one else. A promise to serve B as a valet can only be performed to B. If B were allowed to assign his right to C, and C, whether called the agent of B or not, were permitted to demand that A should serve him, a new obligation would be created differing in substance from that which the obligor undertook. And the same is true of every contract of service involving a personal relation.58 So the promisee under a contract to support him for life, cannot effectively assign his right.59 Nor can one who has a right to free tuition at a school or college.60 A contract by a painter to paint a portrait of A cannot be assigned by A to B so as to change the obligation to one binding the painter to paint B; though it would be possible for A to assign to B the right to have the picture of A when painted by the artist. The question of assigning rights of a personal character inter vans is entirely similar to the question presented when the assignment is due to operation of law on the death of the obligor.61 By the terms of a contract also the duration of a right may be limited to the period of its exercise by the original promisee.62 But to preclude the assignment of contractual rights not so limited, it must appear that a personal relation is involved in the nature of the rights themselves.63 The commonest type of right subject to assignment is one for the payment of money;64 and such an assignment is permissible not only as against a principal debtor, but as against a guarantor.65 A right to buy goods,66 or land,67 or the privilege

56, 57 See cases cited in the preceding note, also Columbia, Water Power Co. c. Columbia, 5 S. C. 225, 234. In Bimroee v. Matthews, 78 Wash. 32, 138 Pac. 319, an assignee of the vendor waa held not to assume the vendor's obligations to convey a perfect title, etc., though the contract of sale provided that it should bind the assigns of the parties and the assignment set over all of the vendor's "right, title, and interest in and to" the contract.

58 Bothick's Adm. p. Purely, 3 Mo.

82 (reprint, p. 00), American Smelting, etc., Co. c. Bunker Hill, etc., Co., 248 Fed. 172, 184; Board of Education v. State Board, 81 N. J. L. 211, 81 Atl. 163; Glaser p. Borough of Fleming-ton, 85 N. J. L. 384, 91 Atl. 1068. See also infra, Sec. 421.

59 Merchants' Mat. Bank v. Crist, 140 Ia. 308, 316, 118 N. W. 394, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 526,132 Am. St. Rep. 267.

60Butts d. McMurry, 74 Mo. App. 526.

61King v. West Const Grocery Co., 72 Wash. 132, 129 Poo. 1031. See infra, Sec.Sec. 1940 et teg.

62 Thus the contract of a railroad to deliver coal on a switch as long as the purchaser continued in business is not assignable by him. Frankfort, etc., By. Co. v, Jackson, 153 Ky. 634, 156 8. W. 103.

63 Hoist v. Boehm, 84 Fed. 565; Roehm p. Horst, 91 Fed. 345, 33 C. C. A. 550, 178 U. S. 1, 44 L. Ed. 963, 20 8. Ct. 780.

64 Campbell v. Equitable Life Ass. Boo., 130 Fed. 786; Bunch v. Stromberg-Carlson Tel. Mfg. Co., 217 Fed. 328, 133 C. C. A. 244; Culver v. Newhart, 18 Gal. App. 615, 123 Pac. 975; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Provolt, 42 Col. 103, 93 Pac. 1126; Western Union Telegraph Co. p. Ryan, 126 Ga. 191, 65 S. E. 21; Timmons v. Citizens' Bank, 11 Ga. App. 69, 74 S. E. 798; Cleary v. Faweett, 19 Ga. App. 184, 91 8. E. 227; Wabash R. Co. v. Smith, 134 111. App. 574; William Gilligan Co. v. Casey, 205 Mass. 26, 91 N. E. 124; Rodgers v. Torrent, 111 Mich. 680, 70 N. W. 335; Ebel v. Piehl, 134 Mich. 64, 95 N. W. 1004; Quigley v. Welter, 95

Minn. 383, 104 N. W. 236; Alden p. George W. Frank Imp. Co., 57 Neb. 67, 77 N. W. 369; Provencher v. Brooks, 64 N. H. 479, 13 Atl. 641; Hofferberth v. Duckett, 175 N. Y. App. D. 480, 162 N. Y. 8. 187; Annis-ton Nat. Bank v. Durham School Comm., 121 N. C. 107, 28 S. E. 134; Browne p. Jno. P. Sharkey Co., 58 Ore. 480, 115 Pac. 156; Galey p. Mellon, 172 Pa. 443, 33 Atl. 560; Robinson p. McKenna, 21 R. I. 117, 42 Atl. 510, 79 Am. St. Rep. 793; Parsons v. Baltimore Building Assoc., 44 W. Va. 335, 29 S. E. 999, 67 Am. St. Rep. 769. Many other cases might be cited.

65Reios v. Mardis, 18 Cal. App. 276, 122 Pac. 1091; Rogers p. Harvey, 143 Ky. 88, 136 S. W. 128.

66ToIhurst.v Associated Mfrs.,[1903] A. C. 414; In re Niagara Radiator Co., 164 Fed. 102; Martin-Alexander Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 70 Ark. 216, 66 S. W. 924; Roberts Cotton Oil Co. p. Morse, 97 Ark. 513, 135 S. W. 334; Pulaski Stave Co. p. Miller's Creek Lumber Co., 138 Ky. 372, 128 8. W. 96; Northwestern Lumber Co. p. Byers, 133 Mich. 534, 95 N. W. 529;

67Torkington v. Magee, [1902] 2 K. B. 427; Latimer v. Capay Valley Land Co., 137 Cal. 286, 70 Pac. 82; Moore p. Gariglietti, 228 111. 143, 81 N. E. 828; Anse La Butte, etc., Co. p. Babb, 122 La. 415, 47 So. 754; Anderson v. American Suburban Corporation, 155 N. C. 131,71S. E. 221,36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 896; Strasser p. Stock, 216 Pa. 577,66 Atl. 87; Royce v. Carpenter, 80 Vt. 37, 66 Atl. 888; and see case cited infra, Sec. 416.

of drawing water from a spring,68 may likewise be assigned. So a right to the performance of any work not of a personal character,69 or a contract to refrain from competition, expressed or implied on the sale of a business or good will 70 may be enforced by an assignee,71 as may the right of a land company to have a street railway company operate its line to a tract of land in question.71 A right to damages for breach of contract is also assignable,72a and a contract right which was too personal for assignment may on its breach give rise to an assignable action for damages.73

Sears v. Conover, 34 Barb. 330, 3 Keyee, 113; Rochester Lantern Co. v. Stiles, etc., Press Co., 135 N. Y. 209, 31 N. E. 1018; Liberty Wall Paper Co. v. Stoner Wall Paper Mfg. Co., 60 N. Y. App. Div. 353, 69 N. Y. Supp. 355, aff'd, 170N. Y. 682,63 N. E. 1119; Smith v. Craig, 211 N. Y. 456, 105 N. E. 70S; Schaffer v. Vandewater, 160 N. Y. App. D. 803, 146 N. Y. S. 769; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Atlantic Co., 147 N. C. 368, 61 S. E. 185,23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 223; Poling v. Condon-Lane, etc., Co., 56 W. Va. 529, 47 8. E. 279. The right to have trading stamps redeemed in goods according to the promise on the stamp may thus be assigned; Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Weber, 161 Fed. 219, 22 Harv. L. Rev. 60 (see also Pond Creek Coal Co. v. Lester, 171 Ky. 811, 188 S. W. 907), even though the assignor was given by the terms of the original contract a right to select the goods. Groot v. Story, 41 Vt. 633.

68Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Cluck, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 211, 72 8. W. 83.

69British Waggon Co. v. Lea, 5 Q. B. D. 149; American Smelting, etc., Co. v. Bunker Hill, etc., Co., 248 Fed. 172; Haskell v. Blair, 3 Cush. 634; Voigt v. Murphy Heating Co., 164 Mich. 639, 129 N. W. 701; Rochester Lantern Co. v. Stiles, etc.. Press Co., 135 N. Y. 209, 31 N. E. 1018; Hand v. Brooks, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 489, 47

N. Y. S. 583; Merritt v. Booldovers' Library, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 454, 85 N. Y. 8. 797; Hudson River Water Power Co. v. Glens Falls, etc., Co., 107 N. Y. App. Div. 548, 95 N. Y. S. 421, 109 N. Y. App. Div. 919, 96 N. Y. S. 1137.

70 See infra, Sec. 1640.

71 Johnston v. Blanchard, 16 Cal. App. 321; and see cases in the following note.

72 Lakeview Land Co. v. San Antonio Traction Co., 96 Tex. 252, 66 8. W. 766.

72a Devine v. Warner, 76 Conn. 229, 56 Atl. 662; Hyland v. Crofut, 87 Conn. 49, 86 Atl. 763; Lynah 9. Citizens' & Southern Bank, 136 Ga. 344, 71 S. E. 469; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Taulbee, 152 Ky. 783, 154 S. W. 27; Simons v. Diamond Match Co., 159 Mich. 241, 123 N. W. 1132; Semper v. Coates, 93 Minn. 78, 100 N. W. 662; Howe v. Smeeth Copper Co. (N. J. L.), 48 Atl. 24; Epstein v. United States Fidelity, etc., Co., 29 N. Y. Misc. 295, 60 N. Y. S. 527; Johnson v. Shuey, 40 Wash. 22, 82 Pac. 123; McConaughey v. Bennett's Ex'rs, 50 W. Va. 172, 40 S. E. 540.

73 Thus damages for breach of a contract to support were held assignable in Bryne v. Dorey, 221 Mass. 399. See also Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Crist, 140 la. 308, 118 N. W. 394, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 526, 132 Am. St. Rep. 287; Baseball Players' Fraternity v.

Where it is possible courts are disposed to hold that a valuable contract right is not only assignable, but is not confined in its scope to the person of the assignee. A contract by one who has sold a business that he will not compete with the purchaser if strictly construed would not even though assignable, forbid competition with an assignee of the purchaser, but it is rather construed unless a contrary intention is expressed, as a promise not to compete with the business in question, whether conducted by the promisee or by one who succeeds to his ownership. Accordingly the promisor is liable to an assignee for competing with him.74 A right which may be assigned by the original obligee may be again assigned by the assignee.75 One of several joint obligees may assign his interest in a chose in action though the assignee can enforce his right only by joining the other joint obligees either in a bill in equity or under code procedure;76 and one joint obligee may assign his interest to his co-obligees,77 though even here the obligation cannot without statute be enforced by the latter at law.77a An assignment of money need not specify the amount assigned, if it indicates a method of determining it. Thus, the assignor may assign" such amounts as may be due him" from a specified debtor.78

Boston etc. Club, 166 N. Y. App. D. 484,16l'N. Y. 8. 667.

74 Knowles v. Jones, 182 Ala. 187, 62 So. 514; California Steam Navigation Co. v. Wright, 6 Cal. 268, 65 Am. Dee. 611; Graca v Rodrigues (Calif.), 165 Pac. 1012; Johnston v. Blanchard, 16 Cal. App. 321; Hedge-Elliott, Co. v. Lowe, 47 Ia. 137; Swanaou v. Kirby, 98 Ga. 586, 26 S. E. 71; Bauwens v. Goethals, 187 111. App. 563; Bennett v. Carmichael Produce Co. (Ind. App.), 115 N. E. 793; Up River Ice Co. v. Denier, 114 Mich. 296, 72 N. W. 167, 68 Am. St. Rep. 480; Haugen v. Sundaeth, 106 Minn. 129, 118 N. W. 666; Hickey v. Brinkley, 88 Neb. 356, 129 N. W. 653; Webster v. Buss, 61 N. H. 40, 60 Am. Rep. 317; Flecken-stein Bros. Co. v. Fleckenstetn, 66 N. J. Eq. 252, 53 Atl. 1043; 57 Ad. 1025; Trowbridge v. Denning, 80 N.

J. L. 236, 77 At!. 1068; Francisco v. Smith, 143 N. Y. 488, 38 N. E. 980; Anders v. Gardner, 161 N. C. 604, 66 S. E. 665; Gompera v. Rochester, 56 Pa. 194; Public Opinion etc Co. v. Ransom, 34 S. Dak. 381, 148 N. W. 838, Ann.Cas. 1917A. 1010. But see centra Hillman v. Shannahan, 4 Oreg. 163, 18 Am. Rep. 281.

75 Dawes v. Boylston, 9 Mass. 337, 346, 6 Am. Dec. 72; Bank of Spring City v. Rhea County (Tenn. Ch.), 59 S. W. 442, and see supra, Sec. 410 ad fin.

76Groves v. Ruby, 24 Ind. 418; State v. Styner, 154 Ind. 131, 136, 56 N. E. 98; McPike v. McPherson, 41 Mo. 521. See also Chapman v. Plum-mer, 36 Wis. 262.

77Smith v. Gregory, 75 Mo. 121.

77a Haworth v. Fisher, 3 Blackf. 249.

78 People v. Westchester County, 67 N. Y. App. D. 135,67 N. Y. S. 981.