The fact that the benefits assigned have not vet accrued, and that the assignor has not performed the contract on his part when he makes the assignment does not prevent the assignment from being valid, at least in equity.1 Thus a street contractor may assign his interest in warrants to be issued to him.2 An employee may assign wages not yet earned under a subsisting contract of employment,3 even if such contract is not for any definite period and is terminable at will.4 If the assignment of wages is without limit as to time or amount,5 or if made with intent to defraud the creditors of the assignor6 the assignment is voidable at the instance of creditors of the assignor. A statute intended to protect attaching creditors which provides that as against attaching creditors an assignment of future earnings shall have no effect unless in writing and recorded, applies to wages and has no application to the assignment of the amount to become due under a contract.7 An assignment of wages to be earned under a contract of employment not yet entered into, but which employer and employee then expected to enter into in a short time, has been held valid in equity.8 An assignment of wages made before the contract of employment ie entered into is void,9 even as between assignor and assignee.10

68 N. W. 549. But a right to use a trade name unconnected with a business is not assignable. Thorne-loe v. Hill (1894), 1 Ch. 569.

12 California Steam Nav. Co. v. Wright, 6 Cal. 259; 65 Am. Dec. 511; Swanson v. Kirby, 98 Ga. 586; 26 S. E. 71; Hedge v. Lowe, 47 la. 137; Up River Ice Co. v. Denier, 114 Mich. 296; 68 Am. St. Rep. 480; 72 N. W. 157; Klein v. Buck, 73 Miss. 133; 18 So. 891; Flecken-stein Bros. Co. v. Fleckenstein, - N. J. Eq. - ; 53 Atl. 1043; Francisco v. Smith, 143 N. Y. 488; 38 N. E. 980; Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473; 60 Am. Rep. 464; 13 N. E. 419; Cowan v. Fair-brother, 118 N. C. 406; 54 Am. St. Rep. 733; 32 L. R. A. 827; 24 S. E. 212. Contra, Hillman v. Shanna-han, 4 Or. 163; 18 Am. Rep. 281.

13 Baker v. Smith (Ky.), 61 S. W. 1014.

14 Dorr v. Alford, 111 la. 278; 82 N. W. 789; Alden v. Improvement Co., 57 Neb. 67; 77 N. W. 369.

16 Houston, etc., Ry. v. Cluck, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 211; 72 S. W. 83.

16 Spencer v. Lovejoy, 96 Ga. 657; 51 Am. St. Rep. 152; 23 S. E. 836; Nichols v. Pacific Co., 23 Or. 123; 37 Am. St. Rep, 664; 18 L. R. A. 55; 31 Pac. 296.

17 Sauter v. Leveridge, 103 Mo. 615; 15 S. W. 981; Barry v. Wa-chosky, 57 Neb. 534; 77 N. W. 1080.

18 Knadler v. Sharp. 36 la. 232; Smalley v. Taylor, 33 Tex. 668; Porter v. Young, 85 Va. 49; 6 S. E. 803.

19 Martin-Alexander Lumber Co. v. Johnson. 70 Ark. 215; 66 S. W. 924; Bewick Lumber Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. 539; 21 S. E. 154.

20 Star Union Lumber Co. v. Finney, 35 Neb. 214; 52 N. W. 1113.

21 Wood v. Carter, - Neb. -; 93 N. W. 158.

1 Warren v. Bank, 149 111. 9; 25 L. R. A. 746; 38 N. E. 122; Knevals v. Blauvelt. 82 Me. 458; 19 Atl. 818; State v. Williamson, 118 Mo. 146; 40 Am. St. Rep. 358; 21 L. R. A. 827; 23 S. W. 1054; Perkins v. Butler County. 44 Neb. 110; 62 N. W. 308; McFarland v. Mfg. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 649; 51 Am. St. Rep. 647;

1.22

33 Atl. 962; Lanigan v. Currier Co., 50 X. J. Eq. 201; 24 Atl. 505; Caul-field v. Van Brunt, 173 Pa. St. 428;

34 Atl. 230; Sykes v. Bank, 2 S. D. 242; 49 N. W. 1058; National Bank v. Fink, 86 Tex. 303; 40 Am. St. Rep. 833; 24 S. W. 256; Stevenson v. Kyle. 42 W. Va. 229; 57 Am. St. Rep. 854; 24 S. E. 886.

2 Stott v. Franey, 20 Or. 410; 23 Am. St. Rep. 132; 26

. 271.

3 Mallin v. Wenham, 209 I11. 252; 70 X. E. 564; affirmed, 103 111. App. 609; Metcalf v. Kincaid, 87 la. 443; 43 Am. St. Rep. 391; 54 X. W. 867; Manly v. Bitzer, 91 Ky. 596; 34 Am. St. Rep. 242; 16 S. W. 464; Ouimet v. Sirois, 124 Mass. 162; Dolan v. Hughes, 20 R. I. 513; 40 L. R. A. 735; 40 Atl. 344; Thayer v. Kelley, 28 Vt. 19; 65 Am. Dec. 220.

4 Harrop v. Landers, etc., Co., 45 Conn. 561; Metcalf v. Kincaid, 87 la. 443; 43 Am. St. Rep. 391; 54 N. W. 867; Lannan v. Smith. 7 Cray (Mass.) 150; Kane v. Clough, 36

Mich. 436; 24 Am. Rep. 599; O'Connor v. Meehan, 47 Minn. 247; 49 X. W. 982.

5 Steinbach v. Brant, 79 Minn. 383; 79 Am. St. Rep. 494; 82 X. W. 651.

6 O'Connor v. Meehan, 47 Minn. 247; 49 X. W. 982; Dow v. Taylor, 71 Vt. 337; 76 Am. St. Rep. 775; 45 Atl. 220.

7 Berlin Iron Bridge Co. v. Banking Co., 76 Conn. 477; 57 Atl. 275.

8 Edwards v. Peterson, 80 Me. 367; 6 Am. St. Rep. 207; 14 Atl. 936.

9Eagan v. Luby, 133 Mass. 543; Neuman v. Mining Co., 57 Mich. 97; 23 X. W. 600; Tolman v. Steel-Roofing Co., 6 Ohio X. P. 467.

10 Lehigh Valley R. R. v. Wood-ring. 116 Pa. St. 513; 9 Atl. 58. Hence if the debtor pays the assignee over the objection of the assignor, it is still liable to the assignor. In this case there was nn time limited within which the assigned wages were to be earned. The court said: " A man may not sell himself into slavery."

Even if a contract of employment is in existence when the assignment is made, vet if it is abandoned thereafter by the assignor,11 or if it expires by efflux of time,12 and in either case is thereafter renewed, the assignment is ineffectual as to wages earned under such renewal. However, an assignment made before a contract of employment is entered into is upheld in equity as to wages earned under subsequent contracts, if the assignment is on valuable consideration, not in fraud of third persons, and if the rights of third persons have not intervened.13 So claims for services not yet rendered,14 for a building contract not yet performed,15 or for property sold but not yet delivered,16 can be assigned in equity. So the right of a mortgagee to securities to be issued thereafter can be assigned.17 In order to perfect the assignment, however, the fund assigned must come into existence.18