No notice to the debtor of an assignment of a non-negotiable chose in action is necessary to give the assignee an equitable right. This is universally agreed to be so as between the parties; 96 and is generally held in a contest between the assignee and the assignor's creditors. Therefore, without having given notice to the debtor, the assignee will be preferred over a subsequent garnishment of the debt by a creditor of the assignor,97 and the debtor remains liable to the assignee, if by failing to disclose an assignment of which he had notice, he is compelled pay the assignor's creditor.98 It is generally said, however, that notice must be given to the garnished debtor in time to enable him to state in his affidavit or answer the facts of the assignment and thereby prevent a judgment charging him.99 But though it would be everywhere conceded that a garnished debtor without notice must be protected, it has been held by some courts that notice is effectual even after judgment charging him and that if payment of the judgment is made after such notice, the assignee may compel the debtor to pay again.1

93 See Legh v. Legh, 1 B. & P. 447; Jeffs v. Day, L. R. 1 Q. B. 372.

94Legh v. Legh, 1 B. A P. 447; Welch c Mandeville, 1 Wheat. 233,

4 L. Ed. 79; Strong v. Strong, 2 Aik. 373.

95 Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277, 283, 5 L. Ed. 87; Fassett v. Mulock,

5 Col. 466; Chapman v. Shattuck, 8 111. 49, 62; Marr v. Hanna, 7 J. J. Marsh. 642, 23 Am. Dec. 449; Hackett v. Martin, 8 Me. 77; Matthews v. Houghton, 10 Me. 420; Eastman v. Wright, 6 Pick. 316; Cutler v. Haven, 8 Pick. 490; St. Johns v. Charles, 105 Mass. 262; Anderson v. Miller, 15 Miss. 586; Lipp v. South Omaha Co., 24 Neb. 692, 40 N. W. 129; Dunckles v. Greenfield Co., 23 N. H. 245; Sloan v. Sommers, 2 Green (N. J.), 509; King v. Miller, 63 Or. 53, 97 Pac. 542; Gaullagher v. Caldwell, 22 Pa. St. 300,

302, 60 Am. Dec. 85; Strong v. Strong, 2 Aiken, 373. See also Brown p. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 379 (Case No. 2009); Wagner v. National Ins. Co., 90 Fed. 395, 33 C. C. A. 121; Chisholm v. Newton, 1 Ala. 371; Cunningham v. Carpenter, 10 Ala. 109, 112; Reed v. Nevins, 38 Me. 193; Rockwood p. Brown, 1 Gray, 261.

96 Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Coyle, 139 Fed. 792; Columbia, etc., Trust Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 116 Ky. 364, 76 S. W. 156; Quigley p. Welter, 95 Minn. 383, 104 N. W. 236; Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co. v. McNair, 139 N. C. 326, 51 S. E. 949; and see cases cited in this section passim. Therefore if the assignor collects the claim he holds the amount collected as constructive trustee for the assignee. MacDonald v. Knee-land, 5 Minn. 362.

97Pickering v. Illracombe Ry. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 235; Robinson v. Newbitt, L. R. 3 C. P, 264; Jones v. Lowery Banking Co., 104 Ala. 252, 16 So. 11; Mclntyre v. Hauser, 131 Cal. 11, 63 Pac. 69; Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Williamson, IS Cal. App. 324, 123 Pac. 245; Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 38 S. E. 105, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77; Savage v. Gregg, 160 111. 161, 37 N. E. 312; McGuire v. Pitta' Sons, 42 Iowa, 535; Dickinson v. Davis, 171 Iowa, 20, 153 N. W. 203; Hall v. Kansas City Terra Cotta Co., 97 Kana. 103, 154 Pac. 210, L. R. A. 1916 D. 361; Millett v. Swift, 138 Ky. 408, 128 S. W. 312; Littlefield v. Smith, 17 Me. 327; Thayer v. Daniels, 113 Mass. 129; Whittredge v. Sweetser, 189 Mass. 45, 75 N. E. 222; Tabor v. Van Vranken, 39 Mich. 793; MacDonald v. Knee-land, 5 Minn. 362; Union Iron Works Co. v. Kilgore, 65 Minn. 497, 67 N. W. 1017; Schoolfield v. Hirah, 71 Miss. 55, 14 So. 528, 42 Am. St. Rep. 450; Hendrickson v. Trenton Bank, 81 Mo. App. 332; Young v. Bank of Princeton, 97 Mo. App. 576, 71 S. W. 713; Oppenheuner v. First Nat. Bank, 20 Mont. 192, 50 Pac. 419; Lewis v. Holdredge, 56 Neb. 379, 76 N. W. 890; Marsh v, Gamey, 69 N. H. 236, 45 Atl. 745; Coming v. Records, 69 N. H. 390, 46 Atl. 462, 76 Am. St. Rep. 178; Board of Education v. Duparquet, 50 N. J. Eq. 234,24 Atl. 922; Jenkinson v. New York Finance Co., 79 N. J. Eq. 247, 82 Atl. 36; Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 N. Y. 608; Anniston Nat. Bank v. Durham, 118 N. C. 383, 24 S. E. 792; Knisely v. Evans, 34 Ohio St. 158; Market Nat. Bank v. Raspberry,

34 Okl. 243, 124 Pac. 758, L. R. A. 1916 E. 79; Meier v. Hess, 23 Oreg. 599, 32 Pac. 755; Patten v. Wilson, 34 Pa. 299; Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 79 Pa. 354, 367, 21 Am. Rep. 66; Phillips Estate (No. 4), 205 Pa. 525, 531, 55 Atl. 216, 97 Am. St. Rep. 760; Tierney v. McGarity, 14 R. I. 231; Chase v. Duby, 20 R. I. 463; Brown v. Minis, 1 McCord, 80; Zimmerman Land & Irrig. Co. v. Rooney Mercantile Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 196 S. W. 201; Bellingham Bay Co. v. Briaboia, 14 Wash. 173, 44 Pac. 163; Gray v. Hof-far, 5 Brit. Col. 56. In a few States, however, garnishment before notice of an assignment is valid. Goslan v. Powell, 32 La. Ann. 621; Bernard v. Whitney Nat. Bank, 43 La. Ann. 60; 8 So. 702, 12 L. R. A. 302; Clodfelter v. Cox, 1 Sneed, 330, 60 Am. Dec. 157; Dews v. Olwill, 3 Baxt. 432; Rodes v. Haynes, 95 Tenn. 673, 33 S. W. 564; Dillingham v. Traders' Ins. Co., 120 Tenn. 302,108 S. W. 1148,16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 220; Ward v. Morrison, 25 Vt. 593; Nichols v. Hooper, 61 Vt. 295, 17 Atl. 134; Woloott v. Mongeon, 88 Vt. 361, 92 Atl. 457. (Notice by the assignor is insufficient.) In Connecticut a creditor who garnishees a claim in ignorance of an assignment is preferred over the assignee if the latter had failed to give notice to the debtor or within a reasonable time after the execution of the assignment. Foster v. Mix, 20 Conn. 395. See also President, etc., of City Bank v. Thorp, 79 Conn. 194, 64 Atl. 205, 465.

98Milliken v. Loring, 37 Me. 408; Tabor v. Van Vranken, 39 Mich. 793.

Similarly in jurisdictions where mechanics' liens give to the lienor only such rights as the general contractor may have,2 An assignee of the general contractor though he has given no notice of his assignment is preferred to the holder of a subsequent hen.3 A prior assignee who has not given notice to the debtor prevails also over a subsequent assignment in bankruptcy by the assignor.4 But where an assignment is made to secure present and future advances, the assignee will be subordinated to an attaching creditor, as to advances made by the assignee after notice of the attachment.5

99See especially Howe p. Howe, 97 Me. 422, 425, 64 Atl. 908; Kingman v. Perkins, 106 Mass. 111; Whittredge v. Sweetser, 189 Mass. 45, 75 N. E. 222; Peterson v. Kingman, 59 Neb. 667,81N. W. 847; Marsh v. Garney, 69 N. H. 236, 45 Atl. 745; Coming v. Records, 69 N. H. 390, 394, 46 Atl. 462, 76 Am. St. Rep. 178; and note in L. R, A. 1916 E. 84-38.

1 McGuire v. Pitta' Sons, 42 Ia. 535; MacDonald v. Kneafaod, 5 Minn. 352; Bellingham Bay Co. v. Briaboia, 14 Wash. 173, 44 Pac. 153, 46 Pac. 238.

2 Mechanics' liens are of two kinds - In some States the mechanic or material-man is given a direct lien on the property; in others he is merely subrogated to the rights of the general contractor. See 27 Cyc. 101. It is only in States where the latter kind of lien is given that the text is applicable.

3 Spengler v. Stiles-Tull Lumber Co., 94 Miss. 780, 48 So. 966; Board of

Education v. Duparquet, 50 N. J. Eq. 234, 24 Atl. 922; Copeland v. Manton, 22 Oh. St. 398; Hall p. Banks, 79 Wis. 229, 48 N. W. 385. See also Brill p. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 454, 37 Am. Rep. 515; Beardaley v. Cook, 143 N. Y. 143, 38 N. E. 109; cf. Carter v. Brady, 51 Fla. 404, 41 So. 539; Beardaley v. Brown, 71 111. App. 199; Simpson p. New Orleans, 109 La. 897, 33 So. 912; Bourget v. Donaldson, 83 Mich. 478, 47 N. W. 326, where the statute giving mechanics' liens was of a different character.

4 Burn v. Carvalho, 4 Mylne & C. 690; Greey p. Dockendorff, 231 U. S. 513, 58 L. Ed. 339, 34 S. Ct. 166; Young v. Upson, 115 Fed. 192; In re Macauley, 158 Fed. 322; In re Cincinnati Iron Store Co., 167 Fed. 486, 93 C. C. A. 122; Muir v. Schenok, 3 Hill, 288, 38 Am. Dec, 633; Bunnell v. Branson, 78 Conn. 679, 63 Atl. 396.

5Howe v. Howe, 97 Me. 422, 54 Atl. 908.