Acceptance of the assignment by the debtor and his assent thereto constitute a new contract between himself and the assignee.1 Under such new contract the rights of the assignee may be greater than those of the assignor under the original contract. Thus if an insurance company assents to an assignment, it waives a right of forfeiture which it had as against the assignor.2 So if the drawee of an order accepts it unconditionally he may thereby become liable to the holder in excess of his liability to the drawer.3 If, however, the drawee accepts upon condition,4 as where he promises to pay out of a specified fund,5 or on the completion of certain work,6 he incurs no liability in excess of the terms of his acceptance.

Brownnell, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 376; Oppenheimer v. Bank, 20 Mont. 192; 50 Pac. 419; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Barnes, 18 Mont. 335; 56 Am. St. Rep. 586; 47 L. R. A. 737; 45 Pac. 218; Slobodisky v. Curtis, 58 Neb. 211; 78 N. W. 522; Bank v. Bayonne, 48 N. J. Eq. 246; 21 Atl. 478; Coates v. First Nat. Bank, 91 N. Y. 20; Risley v. Phenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318; 38 Am. Rep. 421; Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 91; 54 Pac. 413; Nesmith v. Drum, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 9; 42 Am. Dec. 260; Bank v. Rhea County (Tenn. Ch. App.), 59 S. W. 442.

2 Seattle v. Liberman, 9 Wash. 276; 37 Pac. 433.

3 Sykes v. Bank, 2 S. D. 242; 49 N. W. 1058.

4 Union Iron Works v. Kilgore, 65 Minn.497; 67 N. W. 1017; Bur-ditt v. Porter, 63 Vt. 296; 25 Am. St. Rep. 763; 21 Atl. 955.

5 Berlin Mills (Jo. v. Poole, 62 N. H. 439. (Hence if the debtor pays future wages to an assignee he is liable to a creditor of the assignor who attached the wages after the notice of the assignment was served but before the wages were paid.)

6 Kansas City, etc., Ry. v. Robertson, 109 Ala. 296; 19 So. 432; Grain v. Aldrieh, 38 Cal. 514; 99 Am. Dee. 423; Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 15; 32 Am. Dec. 194; James v. Newton, 142 Mass. 366; 56 Am. Rep. 692; 8 N. E. 122; Bradley v. Berns, 51 N. J. Eq. 437; 26 Atl. 908.

7 Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 91; 54 Pac. 413.

1 Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 143 U. S. 596; Hanover Ins. Co. v. Brown, 77 Md. 64; 39 Am. St. Rep. 386; 25 Atl. 989; 27 Atl. 314.

2 Manchester Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 13 Ind. App. 365; 55 Am. St. Rep. 225; 40 N. E. 926; 41 N. E. 847; Me-dearis v. Ins. Co., 104 la. 88; 65 Am. St. Rep. 428; 73 N. W. 495; Hall v. Ins. Co., 93 Mich. 184; 32 Am. St. Rep. 497; 18 L. R. A. 135; 53 N. W. 727.