Sometimes an order is given upon a drawee who has not yet collected the claim to which the order refers. That such an order operates as an assignment of the drawer's claim against the drawee when the money is collected, is unquestionable,18
13Walker v. Rostron, 9 M. & W. 411; Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co., 133 U. S. 473, 486, 33 L. Ed. 674, 10 S. Ct. 390; Barlow v. Lande, 25 Cal. App. 424, 147 Pac. 231; Page v. Danforth, 53 Me. 174; Burrows v, Glover, 106 Mass. 324; Thompson v. Emery, 27 N. H. 269; Hall v. Jones, 151 N. C. 419, 66 8. E. 360; Bentley v. Standard Fire Ins, Co., 40 W. Va. 729, 23 S. E. 584; Mo-Eneaney v. Shevlin, 119121 1 Ir. Rep. 32. Cf. Carossa v. Boxley, 203 Fed. 673, 122 C. C. A. 69; Curtis v. Walpole Fire Co., 218 Fed. 145,134 C. C. A. 140. In Getcheli v. Maney, 69 Me. 442, 443, the court said: "In such cases the rights of the plaintiff as assignee are simply the consideration for the new contract, and the new contract is the ground of action. The suit is upon the defendant's promise to the plaintiff, and not 'upon the assignment,' or upon any right derived from the assignment ex vi facti."
Similarly the New Jersey Court: "If, however, such an order had been given and accepted by [the debtor] the affair would have reached the stage of novation and |the debtor] would have been liable at law to [the assignee]." Lanigan v. Bradley & Currier Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 201, 214, 24 Atl. 505.
14 Hogan v. Globe Mut. Ac. Assoc., 140 Cal. 610, 74 Pac. 153.
15Buttrick Lumber Co. v. Collins, 202 Mass. 413, 418, 89 N. E. 138
16 Brockmeyer v. Washington Nat. Bank, 40 Kans. 744, 21 Pac. 300; Schreiber v. Keller Engraving Co., 57 N. Y. Misc. 644, 108 N. Y. S. 658; Alvord v. Luckenbach, 106 Wis. 537, 82 N. W. 535. See also Glegg v. Rees, L. R. 7 Oh. 71, 74.
17See McEneaney v. Shevlin,  1 Ir. R. 32, 278; Slaughter p. Bank of Texline (Tex. Civ. App.), 164 S. W. 27.
18 See supra, Sec. 414.
but whether it operates as an assignment of the claim before it is paid to the drawee, is not so clear. Some decisions hold that it is not an assignment and accordingly a garnishment of the ultimate debtor before he has paid to the drawee of the order is effective,19 and also a settlement may be made by the drawer with the ultimate debtor.20 It seems, however, that such an order should operate as an assignment if the payee is intended to collect the claim and keep its proceeds. The drawer should hardly be allowed to act in derogation of the order. When he directs the drawee to pay what the latter collects, it is a natural inference that he impliedly undertakes that the drawee shall be allowed to collect without interference. If this implication is proper, the payee of the order has in effect a power which cannot be destroyed to collect the claim from the ultimate debtor through the drawee as an intermediary.21