Rights which would not otherwise be capable of assignment because too personal in their character, and duties the performance of which for a similar reason could not be delegated, may be assigned or delegated if the contract so provides.81 It is not infrequent for promises in contracts to be made to the promisee or bis assigns. The addition of the word "assigns" does not make the promise negotiable, nor does it even allow the assignee to sue in his own name, except when statutes allow the assignee of any assignable contract to sue in this way. The insertion of the word or its equivalent, however, does indicate a willingness on the part of the obligor to render performance to an assignee if so desired. Thus where an option expressly states that the right is given to the promisee or his assigns, it may clearly be enforced by an assignee.82

80In Fortunate v. Patten, 147 N. Y. 277, 41 N. . 572, a contract with a city prohibited assignment without consent of the city. Two assignments were made, the first without the consent of the city, the second with its consent, but on being sued, the city paid money into court to be distributed as equity required; the first assignee was held entitled to priority. See further as to waiver of the objection, Wlson. v. Reuter, 29 la. 176; Burnett v. Jersey City, 31 N. J. Eq. 341.

81Thus the contracts of professional ball pluyers often contain provision1) enabling a club which has employed a player to assign to another club, the right to his services. See Oriffiin v, Brooklyn Bail Club, 68 N. Y. App. D. 666, 73 N. Y. 8. 864, affd. 174 N. Y. 636,66 N. E. 1109; Baseball Players' Fraternity v. Boston, etc., Club, 166 N. Y. App. v. 484, 151 N. Y. 8. 667,

82 Wheeling Creek Gas, Coal, etc. Co., v. Elder, 170 Fed. 215; Wilson ». Seybold, 216 Fed. 975; Laffan v. Naglee, 9 Cal. 662, 70 Am. Dec. 678; Blakeman v. Miller, 136 Cal. 138, 68 Pac. 587, 89 Am. St. Rep. 120; Simmons v. Zimmerman, 144 Cal. 256, 79 Pac. 451; Gustin v. Union School District, 94 Mich. 502, 54 N. W. 156, 34 Am. St. Rep. 361. Even without the word assigns, the same result should be reached. See supra, Sec.Sec. 415. See further as to the effect of the word "assigns" Ladd v. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co., 116 Fed. 878; American Smelting Ac. Co., v. Bunker Hill, etc., Co., 248 Fed. 172; Sanborn v. First Natl. Bank, 9 Colo. App. 245, 47 Pac. 660; Chattanooga R. & C. R. Co. v. Warthen, 98 Ga, 599, 25 8. E. 988; Torrence v. Shedd, 166 111. 194, 41 N. E. 95, 42 N. E. 171; Northwestern Cooperage Co. v. Byers, 133 Mich. 534, 95 N. W. 529; Alden v. George W. Frank Imp. Co., 67 Neb. 67,77 N. W. 369; Rice v. Gibbs, 33 Neb. 460, 50 N. W. 436; Hudson River Water

Notwithstanding the use of such words, however, the intention of the parties must be gathered from a consideration of all the terms and of the entire tenor of the contract, construed in the light of surrounding circumstances, and taking everything into consideration it may appear that assignment was not to be permitted without the assent of the other contracting party.83