The necessity of giving notice of the assignment to the debtor to protect the rights of the assignee depends upon the relation of the parties between whom the question of the validity of the assignment is raised. As between the assignor and assignee such notice need not be given.1 So as between the assignee and creditors of the assignor who are seeking to attach the assigned debt, notice before attachment is not necessary.2 It is sufficient if notice is given in time to enable the debtor to protect himself in the proceedings in garnishment.7 As between the debtor and the assignee, notice is not necessary to enable the assignee to enforce the contract against the debtor.4 But until notice the debtor is justified in treating the assignor as the party in interest, and payment by the debtor to the assignor before notice will discharge the debt in whole or in part.5 So payment by the debtor before notice to an officer making proper levy or attaching discharges his liability to the assignee.6 Where the assignor has assigned the same claim at different times to different assignees, there are two theories as to which of such assignees has the better right under the assignment. The English rule which is followed in many American states is that the assignee who first gives notice to the debtor has the better right.7 In analogy to this rule an order of assignment mailed to the debtor before a receiver of the property of the assignor is appointed, but not received till after such receiver is appointed, is ineffective as against the receiver.8 Under such rule, however, if the second assignee in point of time is the first to give notice he must have taken the assignment for value and without notice of the first assignment.9 The other theory is that the first assignee in point of time has the better right,10 so that if assignments are made at the same time their priorities are equal, even if one assignee gives notice to the debtor before the others do.11 Under a statute providing that if an assignment is written and filed it shall operate as constructive notice, actual notice to the debtor is sufficient, though the statutory notice is not given.12

Bank, 179 I11. 599; 70 Am. St. Rep. 135; 46 L. R. A. 753; 54 N. E. 297.

5 Moore v. Moore, 112 Ind. 149; 2 Am. St. Rep. 170; 13 N. E. 673.

6 Western Bank v. Bank, 90 Ga. 339; 35 Am. St. Rep. 210; 16 S. E. 942; Yarnell v. Brown, 170 111. 362; 62 Am. St. Rep. 380; 48 N. E. 909.

7 Yarnell v. Brown, 170 I11. 362; 62 Am. St. Rep. 380; 48 N. E. 909.

8 Western Bank v. Bank, 90 Ga. 339; 35 Am. St. Rep. 210; 16 S. E. 942.

1 Wakefield v. Martin. 3 Mass. 558; MacDonald v. Kneeland, 5 Minn. 352.

2 Young v. Upson, 115 Fed. 192; Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814; 81 Am. St. Rep. 77; 38 S. E. 105; Chattanooga, etc., Bank v. Steel Co., 87 Ga. 435; 13 S. E. 586; Knight v. Griffey, 161 111. 85; 43 N. E. 727; Thayer v. Daniels, 113 Mass. 129; Schoolfield v. Hirsh, 71 Miss. 55; 42 Am. St. Rep. 450; 14 So. 528; State v. Conrow, 19 Mont. 104; 47 Pac. 640; Scott v. Rohman, 43 Neb. 618; 47 Am. St. Rep. 767; 62 N. W. 46; Pollard v. Pollard, 68 N. H. 356; 39 Atl. 329; Meier v. Hess, 23 Or. 599; 32 Pac. 755; Abbott v. Davidson, 18 R. I. 91; 25 Atl. 839.

3 Knight v. Griffey, 161 I11. 85; 43 N. E. 727; Abbott v. Davidson, 18 R. I. 91; 25 Atl 839.

4Allyn v. Allyn, 154 Mass. 570; 28 N. E. 779; Board of Education v. Duparquet, 50 N. J. Eq. 234; 24 Atl. 922.

5 Vann v. Marbvry. 100 Ala. 438; 46 Am. St. Rep. 70; 23 L. R. A. 325; 14 So. 273: Johnson v. Boice, 40 La. Ann. 273; 8 Am. St. Rep. 528; 4 So. 163; Woods v. Ronco,

85 Me. 124; 26 Atl. 1056; Nielsen v. Albert Lea. - Minn. - ; 98 N. W. 195, 197; Commonwealth v. Sides, 176 Pa. St. 616; 35 Atl. 136; Willoughby v. Florence. 51 S. C. 462; 29 S. E 242; Harvin v. Gallu-chat. 28 S. C. 211; 13 Am. St. Rep. 671; 5 S- E 359.

6 Faber v- Wagner, 10 N. D. 287;

86 N. W. 963.

7 Wigram v. Buckley (1894). 3 Ch. 483; Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. 1; Laclede Bank v. Schuler, 120 U. S. 511; Methven v. Power Co., 66 Fed. 113; 13 C. C. A. 362; Graham Paper Co. v. Pembroke. 124 Cal. 117; 71 Am. St. Rep. 26; 44 L. R. A. 632; 56 Pac. 627; Newman v. Irwin, 43 La. Ann. 1114; 10 So. 181; Newton v. Newton, 46 Minn. 33; 48 N. W. 450; Enoehs-Havis Lumber Co. v. Newcomb, 79 Miss. 462; 30 So. 608; Phillips' Estate (No. 3), 205 Pa. St. 515; 97 Am. St. Rep. 746; 55 Atl. 213.

8 Lane v. Magdebury, 81 Wis. 344; 51 N. W. 562.

9 Newton v. Newton, 46 Minn. 33; 48 N. W. 450; Phillips' Estate (No. 3), 205 Pa. St. 515; 97 Am. St. Rep. 746; 55 Atl. 213.