As between the assignor (or any one who stood in no better position than the assignor) and a partial assignee it was early recognized in England that the assignee was equitably entitled to the portion of the claim assigned to him.86 And though a partial assignee can have no better right in equity than at law to compel an objecting debtor to perform part to the assignee and the remainder to the assignor,87 the difficulty can be evaded.
a similar conclusion as to any partial assignment) that as the assignor had only the right to an execution on the whole debt, he could give an assignee no different right. In Conlan v. Carlow County Council,  1 Ir. R. 535, Bray's opinion was approved and followed.
82 Mandeville v. Welsh, 5 Wheat. 277, 286, 5 L. Ed. 87; Sheatz v. Markley, 249 Fed. 315,161 C. C. A. 323; Vetter v. Meadville, 236 Pa. 663, 85 Atl. 19, and see cases in this section and the following section passim.
83 Bank of Harlem v. Bayonne, 48 N. J. Eq. 246, 253, 21 Atl. 478.
84Cross v. Page & Hill Co., 116 Minn. 123, 133 N. W. 178; Friedman v. Griffith (Mo. App.), 196 S. W. 75. And see cases in regard to the effect of presentment of a check on the liability of a bank to the payee, supra, Sec. 425 n.
85 See supra, Sec. 91.
86This was so decided in Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. Sr. 331 (1749); Lett v. Morris, 4 Sim. 607. See also Yeates v. Groves, 1 Ves. Jr. 280.
87 See cases cited infra, n. 90.
"In equity, the interests of all parties can be determined in a single suit. The debtor can bring the entire fund into court, and run no risks as to its proper distribution. If he be in no fault, no costs need be imposed upon him, or they may be awarded in his favor. If he be put to extra trouble in keeping separate accounts, he can, if it is reasonable, be compensated for it. In many ways a court of equity can, while a court of law, with its present modes, cannot, protect the rights and interests of all parties concerned."88 To one who is disposed to doubt the propriety of equitable protection of partial assignments of choses in action, it might well be asked: " Should it be that the debtor cannot assign to a creditor what the same creditor can attach." 89 And it is now well settled that a partial assignee is equitably entitled to the part of the chose in action assigned to him and may enforce his rights by means of a suit in equity or its modern code equivalents.90 The essential feature of procedure-in equity is that all parties interested in the fund can be made parties and the debtor can pay into court the whole amount due as an entirety. Under code procedure this result may be achieved as readily as under the old form of a bill in equity. The assignor and partial assignee may be allowed to join as plaintiffs;9I or the partial assignee may separately intervene in an action by the assignor against the debtor.92
88Exchange Bank v. McLoon 73, Me. 498, 505, 40 Am. Rep. 388.
89 Ibid., p. 606. That the creditor can attach by garnishment, see James v. Newton, 142 Mass. 366,375,8 N. E. 122, 56 Am. Rep. 692.
90Caroll v. Kelly, 111 Ala. 661, 20 So. 456 (cf. Andrews v. Frierson, 134 Ala. 626, 33 So. 6); Grain v. Aldrich, 38 Cat. 514, 99 Am. Dec. 423; Lawson v. Lyon, 136 Ga. 214, 71 S. E. 149; Timmons v. Citizens' Bank, 11 Ga. App. 69, 74 S. E. 798; Warren v. First Nat. Bank, 149 111. 9, 38 N. E. 122, 25 L. R. A. 746; Lapping v. Duffy, 47 Ind. 51; Palmer v. Palmer, 112 Me. 149, 91 Atl. 281; James v. Newton, 142 Mass. 366, 8 N. E. 122, 56 Am. Rep. 692; Andrews Electric Co. v. St. Al-phonse Ac. Soc., 233 Mam. 20, 123 N.E. 103; Schillings Mullen, 55 Minn. 122, 56 N. W. 586; Whitney v. Cowan, 55 Miss. 626; Field v. Mayor, 6 N. Y.
179,57 Am. Dec. 435; Risley v. Phoenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318, 38 Amer. Rep. 421 (affd. 111 U. S. 125); Carvill v. Mirror Films, 165 N. Y. 8. 676; Etheridge v. Vernoy, 74 N. C. 800; Geist's Appeal, 104 Pa. 351; Harris County v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 22, 3 S. W. 243, 2 Am. St. 467; Dudley v. Barrett, 66 W. Va. 363, 66 8. E. 507. See also Kentucky Lumber Ac. Co. v. Montz, 158 Ky. 328, 164 S. W. 935. An exceptional decision to the contrary is Bosworth v. Jacksonville Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 615, 12 C.C. A. 331. And see Rice v. Dudley, 34 Mo. App. 383; Gordon v. Jefferson City, 111 Mo. App. 23, 85 S. W. 617; Friedman v. Griffith (Mo.), 196 S. W. 75. In Pennsylvania it seems that by no procedure can a municipality be compelled to recognise a partial assignment. Philadelphia's Appeals, 86 Pa. 179; Vetter v. Meadville, 236 Pa. 563, 85 Atl. 19.
It is essential in any event, however, that the assignor be made a party to the litigation;93 but it has been held that the right to require the joinder of the assignor may be waived by failure to take seasonable objection.94 If a part of the assignor's duties in a bilateral contract are delegated to a partial assignee, as well as part of the assignor's rights assigned, the question should be dealt with on the same principles as where a total assignment of the duties and rights of the party to a bilateral contract is attempted; namely, inquiry should be separately made whether the duties may be partly delegated and also whether the right is in its nature capable of assignment. If these questions are answered in the affirmative, the enforcement of the partial right should be allowed.95