At Modern Law in most jurisdictions a contract may be assigned as well at Common Law as in equity.1 The qualifications and exceptions to this general rule will be discussed subsequently.2 This change from the original Common-Law rule is largely due to statute. The statutes which have this effect may be divided into two classes, one class specifically providing for assignment,3 and the other class providing that actions must be brought in the name of the real party in interest, thus enabling the assignee to sue at law in his own name.4 If the statute specifically allows the assignee to sue in his own name this right is not taken away by a provision in the contract providing that the assignee may sue in the name of the assignor.5 Even where such statutes are not in effect the assignee's disabilities at Common Law are now limited to the necessity of his suing in hits assignor's name.6

9 Marr v. Hanna, 7 J. J. Mar. (Ky.) 642; 23 Am. Dec. 449. See Sec. 1272.

10 Hough v. Barton, 20 Vt. 455.

1 Brown v. Heathcote, 1 Atk. 160; Chandos v. Talbot, 2 P. Wms. 601; Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 143 U. S. 596; Brownell Improvement Co. v. Critchfield, 197 111. 61; 64 N. E. 332; Dix v. Cobb, 4 Mass. 508; Up River Ice Co. v. Denier. 114 Mich. 296; 68 Am. St. Rep. 480; 72 N. W. 157; Bleakley v. Nelson. 56 X. J. Eq. 674; 39 Atl. 912; Stott v. Franey, 20 Or. 410; 23 Am. St. Rep.

132; 26 Pac. 271; Morrison v. Dea-derick, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 342.

2 Deaver v. Eller, 7 Ired. (N. C.) 24.

1 Dickerson v. Spokane, 26 Wash. 292; 66 Pac. 381.

2 See Sec. 1259 et seq.

3 Wells v. Cody, 112 Ala. 278; 20 So. 381; Wright v. Hardy, 76 Miss. 524; 24 So. 697; Cleveland v. Hei-denheimer, 92 Tex. 108; 46 S. W. 30.

4 Haupt v. Burton, 21 Mont. 572; 69 Am. St. Rep. 698; 55 Pac. 110.

5 Oilman v. Controlling Co., 180 Mass. 319; 62 N. E. 267.