A contract which would otherwise be assignable may be non-assignable without the consent of the adversary party by inserting a clause providing that it shall not be assigned.1 But under a statute authorizing the assignment of contract rights, the words "not transferable" do not prevent assignment.2 Such a provision is intended solely for the benefit of the creditor whose interests may be affected by assignment. If he assents to the assignment, no one can object.3 The original debtor may consent to such assignment, although he has by contract with another relieved himself from liability.' Thus an insurance company which has reinsured its risks may consent to the assignmerit of a policy.4 If the debtor receives notice of the assignment without objecting thereto, he thereby consents.5 While such provision prevents the assignment of a contract while executory, it does not prevent a party who has performed, from assigning his right to receive compensation,6 nor does it prevent an assignment of the right, on breach of such contract, to recover money paid thereunder.7 Such provision does not prevent assignment as collateral security.8 So a provision in an insurance policy forbidding assignment without proof of insurable interest does not forbid assignment to a creditor not absolutely but merely as collateral security.9 If an insurance company issues a policy to the owners of the property insured, loss payable to the mortgagee as his interest may appear, a clause forbidding assignment does nit prevent, the mortgagee from assigning the debt and his interest under the policy to another.10 A contract for perpetual insurance, notice of assignment of interest to be given to the company in thirty days after the assignment, " to be entered and allowed," does not give the insurance company the right to forfeit the policy for assign-ment of which due notice is given unless the character of the assignee is such as to increase the risk, or some other good cause for objecting to the transfer exists.11

16 Louisville, etc., Ry. v. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244; affirming, 19 Fla. 231; Detroit, etc., Ry. v. Common Council, 125 Mich. 673; 84 Am. St. Rep. 589; 85 N. W. 96; 86 N. W. 809; State Board v. Ry., 49 N. J. L. 193; 7 Atl. 826.

17 Woodcock v. Bostic, 118 N. C. 822; 24 S. E. 362.

1 Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 634; Delaware County v. Lock Co., 133 U. S. 473; Zetterlund v. Texas, etc., Co., 55 Neb. 355; 75 N. W. 860. Building contracts. Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 634; Mueller v. University. 195 I11. 236; 88 Am. St. Rep. 194; 63 N. E. 110. Insurance contract. Merrill v. Ins. Co., 169 Mass. 10; 61 Am. St. Rep. 268; 47 N. E. 439; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 138 Mass. 24; 52 Am. Rep. 245; Dube v. Ins. Co., 64 N. H. 527; 1 L. R. A. 57; 15 Atl. 141; Charch v. Charch, 57 O. S. 561; 49 N. E.

408; McQuillan v. Life Association, 112 Wis. 665; 88 Am. St. Rep. 986; 56 L. R. A. 233; 88 N. W. 925; 87 N. W. 1069. Lighting contract. Omaha v. Oil Co., 55 Neb. 337; 75 N. W. 859.

2 Bewick Lumber Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. 539; 21 S. E. 154.

3 Norton v. Whitehead, 84 Cal. 263; 18 Am. St. Rep. 172; 24 Pac. 154; Wilson v. Reuter, 29 la. 176; Meyer Brothers v. Gaertner. 106 Ky. 481; sub nomine, Louisville Trust Co. v. Gaertner, 45 L. R. A. 513; 50 S. W. 971; Staples v. Somerville, 176 Mass. 237; 57 N. E. 380; Brier-ly v. Equitable Aid Union, 170 Mass. 218; 64 Am. St. Rep. 297; 48 N. E. 1090; Spencer v. Myers, 150 N. Y. 269; 55 Am. St. Rep. 675; 34 L. R. A. 175; 44 N. E. 942; Fortunato v. Patten, 147 N. Y. 277; 41 N. E 572.