It is not necessary that the debtor assent to the assignment to make it valid.1 Hence an assignment is valid if notice is given to the proper officer, though it is accepted by him without authority.2 Accordingly a subsequent assignee with notice3 or subsequent attaching creditors4 take subject to the prior though unaccepted assignment. Under some statutes, however, a written acceptance is necessary.5 If the assignment is partial, assent of the debtor is necessary to its validity at law,6 but not in equity.7

1 Bank-book in savings bank. Hallowell Savings Institution v. Titcomb, 96 Me. 62; 51 Atl. 249; Whalen v. Milholland, 89 Md. 199; 44 L. R. A. 208; 43 Atl. 45; Dunn v. Houghton, (N. J. Eq.), 51 Atl. 71; Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572; 21 Am. St. Rep. 758; 11 L. R. A. 684; 26 N. E. 627; Polley v. Hicks, 58 0. S. 218; 41 L. R. A. 858; 50 N. E. 809. Certificate of deposit. Telford v. Patton, 144 I11. 611; 33 N. E. 1119; Cowen v. Bank, 94 Tex. 551; 63 S. W. 532; 64 S. W. 778. Insurance policy. Hani v. Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 276; 47 Atl. 200; Lord v. Ins. Co., 95 Tex. 216; 66 S. W. 290.

2 Jones v. Moore, 102 Ky. 591; 44 S. W. 126; Bonner v. Beard, 43 La. Ann. 1036; 10 So. 373; Phipps V. Bacon, 183 Mass. 5; 66 N. E. 414; Hicks v. Steel, 126 Mich. 408;

85 N. W. 1121; Coe v. Hinkley, 109 Mich. 608; 67 N. W. 915; Bar-nett v. Ellis, 34 Neb. 539; 52 N. W. 368.

3 Shaford v. Bank. 125 Mich. 431; 84 N. W. 624.

4 Glendale Fruit Co. v. Hirst. - Ariz. - ; 59 Pac. 103.

5 Cornish, etc., Co. v. Marty, 76 Minn. 493; 79 N. W. 507.

6 The Elmbank, 72 Fed. 610.

7 Edwards v. Daley, 14 La. Ann. 384; Tallman v. Hoey, 89 N. Y. 537. "Assignment of choses in action have been said to be executory contracts, which are not to be enforced without consideration." Lonsdale's Estate, 29 Pa. St. 407, 410.

1 Fourth Street National Bank v. Yardley, 165 U. S. 634; Schollmier v. Schoendelen, 78 la. 426; 16 Am. St. Rep. 455; 43 N. W. 282: Foss v. Bank, 111 Mass. 285; Tripp v.