If the duties to be performed by a party to an executory bilateral contract are not of such a personal character that their performance cannot be delegated, and if his rights are assignable in their nature31 he may assign the contract, so far as bilateral contracts are ever assignable; and when a bilateral contract still executory on both sides is spoken of as assignable it can mean no more than that performance of the duties can be delegated and that the rights can be assigned.32 Difficulty more frequently arises in regard to the possibility of delegating the performance of duties than in regard to the assignability of the rights under a contract. The duty of one who contracts to do certain building or engineering work, unless it requires peculiar skill, may be delegated, and therefore one who contracts to do such work may assign his contract, with the effect just defined.33 It has sometimes been suggested that a contract for public work stands on a different footing from contracts for private work, presumably by analogy to cases where the salary of public officials has been held nonassignable; 34 but this distinction seems untenable on principle and opposed to authority.35 An assignment of the right to have construction work performed may also be made by the employer.36 A contract for the production and sale of goods may similarly be assigned by the seller if the work of production did not demand peculiar personal skill.37 Other illustrations of assignable bilateral contracts may be found in the note.38 Even if a promise in a bilateral contract provides for performance involving such personal confidence or skill as to make them incapable of delegation, the rights under the contract may be assigned by the promisor, if he himself performs those duties which cannot be delegated.39

29 The English Act of 1883, Sec. 53 (2), provides that the court may "make such order as it thinks just, for the payment of . . . half-pay or pension, or of any part thereof, to the

30 U. S. Comp. Stat., Sec. 9077.

31 See supra, Sec. 413.

32 See supra, Sec. 412.

33Anderson v. De Urioste, 96 Gal. 404, 31 Pac. 266; Pike v. Waltham, 168 Mass. 581, 47 N. E. 437; St. Louis v. Clemens, 42 Mo. 69; Devlin v. Mayor, 63 N. Y, 8, 17; New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elev. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 153; Janvey v. Loketi, 122 N. Y. App. D. 411, 106 N. Y. 8. 690; Ernst v. Kunkle, 5 Oh. St. 520; Minnetonka

Oil Co. p. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., 27 Okl. 180, 111 Pac. 326; Galey v. Mellon, 172 Pa. 443, 33 Atl. 560; Columbia Water Power Co. v. Columbia, 5 S. C. 225.

34 This is suggested in Delaware County v. Diebold Safe ft Lock Co., 133 U. S. 473,10 S. Ct. 399, 33 L. Ed. 674; Appeals of the City of Philadelphia, 86 Pa. 179. As to contractu with the United States, see supra, Sec.417.

35 Anderson v. De Urioste, 96 Cal. 404, 31 Pac. 266; Carlyle v. Carlyle Water Co., 140 111. 445, 29 N. E. 556; Pike v. Waltham, 168 Mass. 581, 47 N. E. 437; St. Louis c. Clemens, 42 Mo. 69; Ernst v. Kunkle, 5 Oh. St.