In some jurisdictions certain contracts are specifically forbidden to be assigned either at all, or for certain specified purposes. A Federal Statute provides that claims against the United States cannot be assigned; and that claims against the United States cannot be assigned until a warrant has been given for the claim.1 While this statute was at tirst held to make assignments of such contracts invalid, as between the assignor and assignee,2 it is now held that the legislative intent was merely to protect the United States and its officers from being compelled to recognize assignments. Accordingly, if the proper Federal officials acquiesce in the assignment no one else has any right to complain.3 Claims against the United States cannot be assigned if the United States does not assent thereto.4 So if the United States does not assent, claims due from it cannot be reached by attachment, or by the appointment of a receiver of the particular claim.5 Such statute does not apply to a sub-contract made bv a government contractor with a third person to enable the farmer to perform his contract with the government,6 nor to an assignment by a deputy marshal of his claims against the marshal.7 Some statutes forbid assigning a claim to a non-resident to enable him to sue in another state and thus avoid local exemption laws. In the absence of statute this can be done and the debtor has no right of action against the assignor.8 So an attachment suit already begun in another state may be assigned to a resident of such state on the debtor's making an assignment in insolvency, and thus an injunction against the prosecution of the attachment suit may be prevented.9 Statutes forbidding assignment of claims to residents of other states to evade exemption laws are valid.10 They apply to a claim assigned in good faith before the act is passed, bur assigned by the assignee to a third person to evade the act.11 They apply to a foreign corporation doing business and extending credit within the state, which sues in another state to enforce its claim." In the absence of statue in the state in which suit is brought such statutes forbidding assignment have no extra-territorial operation. The efficienl remedy is either to make such conduct criminal13 or to provide that in such cases the debtor may recover from the assignor the amount collected from the debtor by the action in the state to which the debt has been sent for collection.14

4 Faneuil Hall Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 63; 10 L. R. A. 423; 26 N. E. 244.

5 Staples v. Somerville, 176 Mass. 237; 57 N. E. 380; Turner v. Wells, 64 N. J. L. 269; 45 Atl. 64l; Burnett v. Jersey City, 31 N. J. Eq. 341.

6 Bank of Harlem v. Bayonne, 48 N. J. Eq. 246; 21 Atl. 478.

7 Shively v. Water Co., 99 Cal. 259; 33 Pae. 848.

8 Butler v. Rockwell, 14 Colo. 125; 23 Pae. 462; Crouse v. Mitchell, 130 Mich. 347; 97 Am. St. Rep. 479; 90 N. W. 32.

9 Curtiss v. Ins. Co.. 90 Cal. 245; 25 Am. St. Rep. 114; 27 Pae. 211.

10 Whiting v. Burkardt, 178 Mass. 535; 86 Am. St. Rep. 503; 52 L. R. A. 788; 60 N. E. 1.

11 Marshall v. Ins. Co.. 176 Pa. St. 628; 34 L. R. A. 159; 35 Atl. 204.

1 R. S. U. S. Sec. 3477. 3737.

2 Spofford v. Kirk. 97 U. S. 484.

3 Freedman's, etc.. Co. v. Shepherd. 127 U. S. 494: Hobbs v. McLean. 117 U. S. 567: Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556: Dulaney v. Scudder. 94 Fed. 6: 36 C. C. A. 52: Lopey v. United States. 24 Ct. CI. 84; 2 L. R. A. 571; Jernegan v. Os-born. 155 Mass. 207: 29 X. E. 520; Fewell v. Surety Co.. 80 Miss. 782: 92 Am. St. Rep. 625: 28 So. 755; York v. Conde. 147 X. Y. 486; 42 X. E. 193.

4 John Shillito Co. v. MeClung,

51 Fed. 868: 2 C. C. A. 526. (Claim for duties.)

5 Howes v. United States. 24 Ct. CI. 170: 5 L. R. A. 66.

6 United States v. Farley. 91 Fed. 474.

7 Wallace v. Douglas. 116 X. C. 659; 21 S. E. 387. (This not being a claim against the United States.)

8 Horwell v. Sharp. 85 Ga. 124: 21 Am. St. Rep. 149: 8 L. R. A. 514: 11 S. E. 561.

9 Proctor v. Bank. 152 Mass. 223; 9 L. R. A. 122: 25 X. E. 81.