Since no particular form of assignment is necessary, a contract may be assigned without a deed, even if it is for the sale of an interest in realty.1 So interest under sealed contract may be assigned without a sealed assignment.2 A deed purporting to convey an interest in a contract operates as an assignment,3 even if invalid as a deed.4 So does a mortgage if so intended.5 The destruction of a quit-claim deed which operated as an assignment of an interest in a contract for the sale of realty does not defeat the assignment unless the parties intended it as a re-assignment.6 After the owner of realty has contracted with one person for its sale, his conveyance to another subject to such contract does not operate as an assignment of the contract.7 An assignment may be effected by an instrument under seal.8 Rights under a non-negotiable contract may be assigned by a written instrument separate from the contract assigned,9 or by an indorsement on the contract assigned,10 or by an oral contract, even if the contract to be assigned is in writing.11 Accordingly an oral assignment is not invalidated either because it is evidenced by a written instrument executed at a later date12 or because such written assignment, intended to be executed subsequently, is never in fact executed.13 If the assignment is in writing and there is no prior valid oral assignment, delivery is essential to its validity.14 Hence if placed by the assignor in an envelope addressed to the assignee and taken by the assignee while the assignor is unconscious from the effect of poison no delivery exists and the assignment has no effect.15 Delivery of a written non-negotiable contract or memorandum with intent to assign the same operates as an assignment.16 It has been said, however, that the mere indorsement and delivery of a non-negotiable note does not of itself amount to an assignment.17 A building contractor's marking a bill "approved," rendered for material furnished for the building, is not an assignment of so much of the contract price as is sufficient to pay such bill.18 A power of attorney to collect a debt is not of itself an assignment,19 but it may be a means of effecting an assignment if such is the intention of the parties,20 as where the attorney is to retain the amount owed him by the principal.21 If A is indebted to B, and C pays A's debt to B under contract with B to assign to C A's indebtedness, such contract operates as an assignment at least in equity.22 But if C makes such payment as a loan to A, and without any contract for an assignment with either A or B, no assignment exists.23 Discounting a draft with a bill of lading attached gives a qualified interest in the bill of lading which becomes absolute if the drawee does not accept the draft.24 But until the draft is paid or discounted no title passes.25 An agreement to pay a certain amount out of a certain fund may, as between the assignor and the assignee, amount to a partial assignment in equity, giving a lien on such fund.26 Some statutes prescribe formalities for assigning certain kinds of contracts.27 Where such statutes are exclusive, and make other forms of assignment invalid, effect must be given to such provisions. Thus assignments of wages to be valid against third persons must in Maine be filed where the assignor is "commorant."28 If not so filed it is invalid as against a subsequent assignment duly filed.29 Under a similar statute filing an assignment where the assignor resides is sufficient, though he removes to another town thereafter and it is not refiled.30 Under other statutes an assignment must be in writing.31 A statute requiring a written assignment to pass the legal title does not require a writing to cancel an assignment.32 So if the statute provides that a purchaser's certificate at judicial sale may be assigned by indorsement thereon and legal title will thus pass, assignment on a separate paper will not pass legal title.33 If statutes which provide for assignment are cumulative merely, an assignment is valid though not in conformity thereto. Thus a judgment may be assigned by parol, though the statute provides a form therefor.34 Recording and filing of assignments are not necessary unless required by statute.35 A statute requiring contracts for future wages to be recorded does not apply to building contracts.36

16 Howes v. Blackwell, 107 N. C. 196; 22 Am. St. Rep. 870; 12 S. E. 245.

17 Clark v. Trust Co., 186 I11. 440; 78 Am. St. Rep. 294; 53 L. R. A. 232; 57 N. E. 1061.

1 Fruhauf v. Bendheim, 127 N. Y. 587; 28 N. E. 417; Sayre v. Moh-ney, 30 Or. 238; 47 Pac. 197.

2 Hoffman v. Smith, 94 la. 495; 63 N. W. 182; Allen v. Pancoast, 20 N. J. L. 68.

3 Brock v. Pearson, 87 Cal. 581; 25 Pac. 963. (Here the deed purported to convey one-fourth of the land contracted for and was treated as an assignment of one-fourth of the contract.)

4 Mnrchant v. Morton (1901), 2

K. B. 829. (Since executed by one partner only, in the partnership name.)

5 Dutton's Estate, 181 Pa. St. 426; 37 Atl. 582.

6 Brock v. Pearson, 87 Cal. 581, 25 Pac. 963.

7 O'Brien v. Evans, 107 Mich. 623; 65 N. W. 571.

8 Wilson v. Kiesel, 9 Utah 397; 35 Pac. 488.

9 Spring v. Ins. Co., 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 268; Barrett v. Hinckley, 124 I11. 32; 7 Am. St. Rep. 331; 14 N. E. 863; Erickson v. Kelly. 9 N. D 12; 81 N. W. 77; Leonard v. Kebler. 50 O. S. 444; 34 N. E. 659.

10 Williamson v. Yager. 91 Ky. 282; 34 Am. St. Rep. 184; 15 S. W.

660; Brown v. Bank, 11 Mass. 153; Kulp v. March, 181 Pa. St. 627; 59 Am. St. Rep. 687; 37 Atl. 913.

11 Leonard v. Marshall, 82 Fed. 396; Chamberlin v. Gilman, 10 Colo. 94; 14 Pac. 107; Perkins v. Peterson, 2 Colo. App. 242; 29 Pac. 1135; State v. Tomlinson. 16 Ind. App. 662; 59 Am. St. Rep. 335; 45 N. E. 1116; Tone v. Shankland. 110 la. 525; 81 N. W. 789; Seymour v. Aultman, 109 la. 297; 80 N. W. 401; Hoffman v. Smith. 94 la. 495; 63 N. W. 182; Howe v. Jones, 57 la. 130; 8 N. W. 451; 10 N. W. 299; Moore v. Lowrey, 25 la. 336; 95 Am. Dec. 790; McCubbin v. Atchin-son, 12 Kan. 166; Beard v. Sharp (Ky.), 65 S. W. 810; Newby v. Hill, 2 Met. (Ky.) 530; Porter v. Billlard, 26 Me. 448; Jones v. Witter, 13 Mass. 304; Harris v. Chamberlain, 126 Mich. 280; 85 N. W. 728; Draper v. Fletcher. 26 Mich. 154; Sackett v. Montgomery, 57 Neb. 424; 73 Am. St. Rep. 522; 77 N. W. 1083; Thompson v. Emery, 27 N. H. 269; Hutchinson v. Low, 13 N. J. L. 246; Roberts v. Bank. 8 N. D. 474; 79 N. W. 993; Jones v. Reynolds. 120 N. Y. 213; 24 N. E. 279; Hooker v. Eagle Bank, 30 N. Y. 83; 86 Am. Dec. 351; Risley v.

Phenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318; 38 Am. Rep. 421; Barron v. Williams, 58 S. C. 280; 79 Am. St. Rep. 840; 36 S. E. 561; Miller v. Newell, 20 S. C. 123; 47 Am. Rep. 833; Cook v. Shute, Cook (Tenn.) 67; Rollison v. Hope, 18 Tex. 446; Hackett v. Mox-ley, 65 Vt. 71; 25 Atl. 898; Seattle National Bank v. Emmons, 16 Wash. 585; 48 Pac. 262; Wilt v. Huffman, 46 W. Va. 473; 33 S. E. 279; Bent-ley v. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729; 23 S. E. 584.

12 Roberts v. Bank, 8 N. D. 474; 79 N. W. 993.

13 Kenneweg v. Schilansky, 45 W. Va. 521; 31 S. E. 949.

14Erickson v. Kelly. 9 N. D. 12; 81 N. W. 77; Leonard v. Kebler, 50 O. S. 444; 34 N. E. 659. But' see Kulp v. Marsh, 181 Pa. St. 627; 59 Am. St. Rep. 687; 37 Atl. 913, where an assignment was held valid though not delivered, but written on the insurance contract to be assigned. And see to the same effect Williamson v. Yager, 91 Ky. 282; 34 Am. St. Rep. 184; 15 S. W. 660.

15 Leonard v. Kebler. 50 O. S. 444; 34 N. E. 659.

16 Coupons. Tyndale v. Randall, 154 Mass. 103; 27 N. E. 882. Time check. Citizens' State Bank v.

Bonness, 76 Minn. 45; 78 N. W. 875. Insurance policy. Hancheyv. Hurley, 129 Ala. 306; 30 So. 742; Hani v. Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 276; 80 Am. St. Pep. 819; 47 Atl. 200; Bentley v. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729; 23 S. E. 584. Chattel mortgage. Hodges v, Wilkinson, 111 X. C. 56; 17 L- Pv. A. 545; 15 S. E. 941 (assignment indorsed on margin). Account book. Preston v. Peterson, 107 la. 244; 77 N. W. 864; Eisley v. Phenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318; 38 Am. Rep. 421.

17 Chicago, etc., Bank v. Trust Co., 190 I11. 404; 83 Am. St. Rep. 138; 60 N. E. 586.

18 Flaherty v. Lumber Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 467; 44 Atl. 186.

19 Rogers v. Lindsey, 13 How. (U. S.) 441; Halliburton v. Nance, 40 Ark. 161; Watson v. Philadelphia, 142 Pa. St. 179;.21 Atl. 815 (hence the debtor can set-off damages for a breach by the principal of another contract).

20 Murphy v. Bordwell, 83 Minn. 54; 52 L. R. A. 849; 85 N. W. 915; National Bank v. Trust Co., 17 App. D. C. 112.

21 Key's Estate, 137 Pa. St. 565; Am. St. Rep. 896; 20 Atl. 710.

22 Crumlish v. Improvement Co., 38 W. Va. 390; 45 Am. St. Rep. 872; 23 L. R. A. 120; 18 S. E. 456.

23 United States v. Rundle, 107 Fed. 227; 52 L. R. A. 505: Bartholomew v. Bank, 57 Kan. 594; 47 Pac. 519; Crumlish v. Improvement Co., 38 W. Va. 390; 45 Am. St. Rep. 872; 23 L. R. A. 120; 18 S. E. 456.

24 American National Bank v. Henderson, 123 Ala. 612; 82 Am. St. Rep. 147; 26 So. 498; Hathaway v. Haynes, 124 Mass. 311; City Bank v. Ry., 44 N. Y. 136; Emery v. Bank, 25 O. S. 360; 18 Am. Rep. 299; Richardson v. Nathan, 167 Pa. St. 513: 31 Atl. 740; Neil v. Produce Co., 41 W. Va. 37; 23 S. E 702.

25 Kentucky Refining Co. v. Refining Co., 104 Ky. 559; 84 Am. St. Rep. 468; 42 L. R. A. 353; 47 S. W. 602. (Hence the goods are liable to attachment by creditors of the consignor.)

26 Sanborn v. Maxwell, 18 App. D. C. 245; Leupold v. Weeks, 96 Md. 280; 53 Atl. 937.

27 Turk v. Cook, 63 Ga. 681.

28 Under such statute a river driver is not "commorant." Gil-man v. lnman, 85 Me. 105; 26 Atl. 1049.

29 Peabody v. Lewiston, 83 Me. 286; 22 Atl. 171.

30 Garland v. Linsky, 19 R. I. 713; 36 Atl. 837.

31 Foster v. Sutlive, 110 Ga. 297; 34 S. E. 1037.

32 Rennie v. Block, 26 Can. S. C. 356.

33 Chytraus v. Smith, 141 I11. 231; 30 N. E. 450.

34 Gardner v. R. R., 102 Ala. 635; 48 Am. St. Rep. 84; 15 So. 271.

35 McDonald v. Bank, 111 Mich. 649; 70 N. W. 143.

36 Abbott v. Davidson, 18 R. I. 91; 25 Atl. 839.