The right of one who has contracted to subscribe to the stock of a corporation to assign this right has been called in question,3 on the ground that a corporation in disposing of its stock has an interest in the persons who become stockholders. But unless by the terms of the charter the corporation has power to refuse to register as a stockholder any one who may purchase stock after it has been once issued, there seems no reason for denying the right to assign a contract to issue stock in the first place, and it is generally permitted.4

98Willkins v. Hardaway, 159 Ala. 566, 48 So. 678; Chnbrough v. Visard Inv. Co., 156 Ky. 149, 160 8. W. 726; Anse La Butte Oil Co. v. Babb, 122 La. 415, 47 So. 754; Strasser v. Stack, 216 Pa. 577, 66 Atl. 87; Ringling v. Smith River Development Co., 48 Mont. 467, 138 Pac. 1098; Big Bead Land Co. v. Hutchings, 71 Wash. 345, 128 Pac. 652; Kreutwr v. Lynch, 122 Wis. 474, 100 N. W. 887. See also Cameron v. Shumway, 149 Mich. 634, 113 N. W. 287; Window v. Dundom, 46 Mont. 71, 125 Pac. 136; Window v. Wm. Richards Co., 3 N. B. Eq. Rep. 481; Oiand v. McNeill, 32 Can. S. C. 23. So a covenant not to sell property without first offering it to the cov-entee has been held assignable by the latter. H. J. Lewis Oyster Co. v. West (Conn.), 107 Atl. 138.

99Woodall v. Clifton, [1906] 2 Ch. 257; Friary etc. Breweries v. Singleton, [1899] 2 Ch. 261; Hitchcock p. Page, 14 Cal. 440; Robinson v. Perry, 21 Ga. 183, 68 Am. Dee. 455; Perry v.

Paschal, 103 Ga. 134, 29 S. E. 703; House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89, 32 Pac. 1027; Kerr v. Day, 15 Pa. 112, 53 Am. Dec. 526; Napier v. Darlington, 70 Pa. 64; Hagar v. Buck, 44 Vt. 285, 8 Am. Rep. 368; Albert Brick etc. Co. p. Nelson, 27 N. B. 276.

1Wheeling Creek Co. v. Elder, 170 Fed. 215; Newton v. Newton, 11 R. I. 390, 23 Am. Rep. 476; Rease v. Kittle, 56 W. Va. 269, 49 S. E. 150; Vanderb'p v. Peterson, 16 Manitoba L. R. 341. See also Myers v. Stone, 128 Ia. 10, 102 N. W. 507, 111 Am. St. Rep. 180 (where the promise was to the original promisee and to "no other person") commented on in Blank v. Independent Ice Co., 152 Ia. 241,133 N. W. 344, 43 L, R. A. (N. S.) 115.

2 Myers v. Stone, 128 Iowa, 10, 102 N. W. 507, 111 Am. St. Rap. 180; Andrew v. Meyerdirck, 87 Md. 511, 40 Atl. 173; Fulton v. Messenger, 61 W. Va. 477, 56 S. E. 830. See also cava cited supra, Sec. 411, ad fin.

3Holyoke v. Millmann, 151 Wis.

Sec. 417. Other assignments of rights which are opposed to public policy. Certain assignments may be specifically forbidden by statute Thus claims against the United States cannot be assigned until they have been allowed and a warrant issued for them.5 Assignments by Indians of royalties due under oil leases of their lands are invalid unless approved by the Secretary of the Interior.6 Without the prohibition of a statute, the salary or pay of a public officer not yet due, cannot be assigned. This principle has been applied to assignments by legal officers, as prosecuting attorneys,7 a master to whom a case had been referred,8 a clerk of court,9 a sheriff,10 a police officer,11 a fireman,12 and to political officers like a county treasurer.13 It is equally applicable to minor public officials, like clerks and copyists,14 to assessors,15 to a retired army officer,16 and generally to all public employees.17 A few early cases to the contrary 18 would probably not be followed.

551, 139 N. W. 392. See aalso Coleman v. Spencer, 6 Blackf. 197.

4 McGue v. Rommel, 148 Cal. 639,83 Pac. 100; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Sewell, 3S Md. 238, 6 Am. Rep. 402; Brigham v. Mead, 10 Allen, 245; Valentine v. Berrien Springs Water-Power Co., 128 Mich. 280, 87 N. W. 370; Manchester Street Ry. v. Williams, 71 N. H. 312, 52 Atl. 461; Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. Burns, 82 Tex. 50, 56, 17 S. W. 1043; Lipscomb's Adm. v. Condon, 56 W. Va. 416, 49 S. E. 392, 67 L. R. A. 670, 107 Am. St. Rep. 938. Bee also Hmrtingn Lumber Co. v. Evans, 188 Mass. 587, 75 N. E. 67.

5 See National Bank of Commerce v. Downie, 218 U. S. 345, 31 S. Ct. 89, 54 L. Ed. 106G; St. Paul, etc., R. Co. v. United States, 112 U. S. 733, 5 S. Ct. 366, 28 L. R. A. 861. The object of this statute is, however, to protect the government, not the assignor, and if it chooses to recognize a forbidden assignment, the assignor cannot complain, and the disposition of the courts seems to be to protect the assignee as far as possible. Price v. Forrest, 173 U. S. 410, 19 S. Ct. 434, 43 L. Ed. 749; Dulaney v. Scudder, 94 Fed. 6, 36 C. C. A. 52; York v. Conde, 147 N. Y. 486, 42 N. E. 193. And assignments by operation of law, as to executors or trustees in bankruptcy, are not included in the prohibition of the statute. Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556, 26 L. Ed. 229; National Bank of Commerce v. Downie, 218 U. S. 345, 31 S. Ct. 89, 54 L. Ed. 1065.

6 United States v. Noble, 237 U. S. 74, 35 S. Ct. 532, 59 L. Ed. 844; Day v. Charlton (Old.), 160 Pac. 606.

7Holt v. Thurman, 111 Ky. 84, 63 S. W. 280, 98 Am. St. Rep. 399; Anderson v. Branstrom, 173 Mich. 1G7, 139 N. W. 40, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 422; Cooley Credit Co. v. Townsend, 132 Mo. App. 390, 111 S. W. 894; First Nat. Bank v. State, 68 Neb. 482, 94 N. W. 633; State v. Barnes, 10 S. Disk. 306, 73 N. W. 80.

8Shannon v. Bruner, 36 Fed. 147.

In Minnesota even accrued salary of such an official can probably not be assigned. It has at least been held that it cannot be seized by creditors.19 But generally Buller's statement would probably be accepted "If the question had been whether or not the pay which was actually due might be assigned, I should have thought it like any other debt assignable." 20 It has been said that there is no legal objection to an assignment of unearned salary or fees of a public officer becoming effective as soon as the salary or fees have been earned and

9Field v. Chipley, 79 Ky. 260, 42 Am. Rep. 21S.

10 Bowery Nat. Bank v. Wilson, 122 N. Y. 478, 25 N. E. 855,9 L. R A. 706, 19 Am. St. Rep. 607.

11 Chicago v. People, 98 111. App. 617.

12Schmitt v. Dooling, 145 Ky. 240,

140 8. W. 197, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 881. 13Roesch v. W. B. Worthen Co.,

95 Ark. 482,130 S. W. 651, 31 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 374.

14Bangs v. Dunn, 66 Cal. 72, 4 Pac. 963; Bliss v. Lawrence, 68 N. Y. 442, 17 Am. Rep. 273.

15 Stewart v. Sample, 168 Ala. 270, 63 So. 182; Ex parte Stewart, 185 Ala. 216, 64 So. 36; Stevenson v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 24 8. E. 886, 57 Am. St. Rep. 854 [Cp. American Nat. Bank v. Petry (Tex. Civ. App.),

141 S. W. 1040].

16Lidderdale v. Montrose, 4 T. R. 248; Schweok v. Wyckoff, 46 N. J. Eq. 560, 20, Atl. 259, 9 L. R. A. 221, 19 Am. St. Rep. 438.

17Arbuckle v. Cowtan, 3 B. & P. 321, 328; Wells v. Foster, 8 M. & W. 149; King c. Hawkins, 2 Ariz. 368, 16 Pac. 434; Schmitt v. Dooling, 146 Ky. 240,140 8. W. 197, 36 L. R. A. (N. 8.)

881; Dickinson v. Johnson, 110 Ky. 236, 61 S. W. 267, 54 L. R. A. 566, 96 Am. St. Rep. 434; Granger v. French, 152 Mich. 356, 116 N. W. 181, 126 Am. St. Rep. 416; Dunkley v. Marquette, 157 Mich. 359, 122 N. W. 126; State v. Williamson, 118 Mo. 146, 23 S. W. 1064,21 L. R. A. 827,19 Am. St. Rep. 358; Bliss v. Lawrence, 58 N. Y. 442, 17 Am. Rep. 273; Walker v. New York, 72 N. Y. Misc. 97, 129 N. Y. S. 1069; Tribune Reporter Printing Co. v. Cadwell Transit Co. (Utah) 169 Pac. 170.

18Brackett v. Blake ft Trustee, 7 Metc. 336; State Bank v. Hastings, 15 Wis. 75. See also National Bank v. Fink, 86 Tex. 303, 24 S. W. 256, 40 Am. St. Rep. 833.

19Roeller v. Ames, 33 Minn. 132, 22 N. W. 177; Sandwich Mfg. Co. v. Krake, 66 Minn. 110, 68 N. W. 606, 61 Am. St. Rep. 395.

20Flarty v. Odium, 3 T. R. 681; Ex parte Stewart, 185 Ala. 216, 64 So. 36; Roesch v. W. B. Worthen Co., 95 Ark. 482,130 S. W. 551, 31L. R. A. (N. S.) 374; Birkbeck v. Stafford, 14 Abb. Pr. 285; Thompson v. Cullers, (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 412.

are payable;21 but this seems inadmissible.22 If, however, the assignee has actually collected and reduced to possession the proceeds of the claim, he cannot be deprived of them.22a As has been seen 23 an agreement that the owner of a claim will make a certain disposition of its proceeds, when collected by him, is not an assignment, and public policy does not invalidate such an agreement in regard to official pay.24 A claim for alimony cannot be assigned voluntarily or subjected to involuntary alienation for the payment of debts. 25 Nor is the right to it lost by the discharge in bankruptcy of a husband bound for its payment.26 In many States as previously observed limitations are imposed by statute on the right to assign wages.27

Whether a right is assignable voluntarily involves in the main the same question as whether it will pass under an assignment in bankruptcy. A pension solely for past services will pass to an assignee or trustee in bankruptcy, but not a pension in consideration of continuing future services.28 The matter of government pensions is now largely regulated by statute.29 In the United States the pensions of soldiers and sailors cannot be assigned.30

21Roesch v. W. B. Worthen Co., 95 Ark. 482,130 S. W. 551, 31 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 374, citing, Bliaa v. Lawrence, 58 N. Y. 442, 17 Am. Rep. 273; Stephenson v. Walden, 24 Ia. 84, which, however, do not support the proposi-

22In re Wilkes, 8 Cal. App. 656, 97 Pac. 677; and see cases cited supra, n.7-16.

22aRoescb v. W. B. Worthen Co., 95 Ark. 482,130 S. W. 551, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 374; Johnson v. Pace, 78 111. 143; Stephenson v. Walden, 24 Ia. 84; Oberdorfer v. Louisville School Board, 120 Ky. 112, 85 8. W. 696; Carnegie Trust Co. v. Battery Place Realty Co., 67 N. Y. Misc. 452, 122 N. Y. 8.697.

23 Supra, Sec. 414.

24 McGregor v. McGregor, 130 Mich. 505, 90 N. W. 284, 97 Am. St. Rep. 492; Thurston v. Fairman, 9 Hun, 584.

25 Paquine v. Snary, [1909) 1 K. B.

688; Romaine v. Chauncey, 129 N. Y. 566, 29 N. E. 826, 14 L. R. A. 712, 26 Am. St. Rep. 544.

26Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, 21 S. Ct. 735, 45 L. Ed. 1009.

27 See supra, Sec. 414 ad fin. In New York assignment of a contract for the performance of labor or furnishing materials for the improvement of real estate is invalid unless the assignment, is filed. Williams Engineering, etc., Co. v. New York, 175 N. Y. App. D. 571, 162 N. Y. S.381.

28Spooner v. Payne, 1 De G. M. & G. 383; Wells v. Foster, 8 M. ft W. 149; Ex parte Huggins, 21 Ch. D. 85. See also Oliver v. Emsonne, Oyer lb; York v. Twine, Cro. Jac. 78; Heald v. Hay, 3 Giff. 467; Carew v. Cooper, 4 Giff. 619; Ellis v. Earl Grey, 6 Sim. 214; Tunstall v. Boothby, 10 Sim. 542; Knight v. Bulkeley, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 817; Ex parte Webber, 18 Q. B. D. 111; McCarthy v. Goold, 1 Ball & Beatty (Ir. Ch.), 387.