Rhode Island. Dolan v. Hughes, 20 R. I. 513, 40 L. R. A. 735, 40 Atl. 344.

Vermont. Thayer v. Kelley, 28 Vt. 19, 65 Am. Dec. 220.

Wisconsin. Porte v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 162 Wis. 446, 156 N. W. 469.

Special reasons control the assignment by a public officer of his unearned salary under his term of office. Such assignment is invalid. McGowan v. New Orleans, 118 La. 429, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1120, 43 So. 40; Granger v. French, 152 Mich. 356, 116 N. W. 181; Anderson v. Branstrom, 173 Mich. 157, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 422, 139 N. W. 40; Tribune Reporter Printing Co. v. Homer, - Utah - , 160 Pac. 170; Stevenson v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 57 Am. St. Rep. 854, 24 S. E. 886.

His salary which has been earned may be assigned. Oberdorfer v. Louisville School Board, 120 Ky. 112, 85 S. W. 696, 27 Ky. Law. Rep. 508. See Sec. 2257.

4 Connecticut. Harrop v. Landers, etc., Co., 45 Conn. 561.

niinois. Monarch Discount Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 285 111. 233, 120 N. E. 743.

Iowa. Metcalf v. Kincaid. 87 Ia. 443, 43 Am. St. Rep. 391, 54 N. W. 867.

Massachusetts. Lannan v. Smith, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) 150.

Michigan. Kane v. Clough, 36 Mich. 436, 24 Am. Rep. 599.

Minnesota. O'Connor v. Meehan, 47 Minn. 247, 49 N. W. 982.

5 That bankruptcy does not affect the assignee's right. Mallin v. Wenham, 209 111. 252, 65 L. R. A. 602, 101 Am. St. Rep. 233, 70 N. E. 564. That bankruptcy operates as a bar. Hupp v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 99 Neb. 654, L. R. A. 1916E, 247, 157 N. W. 343.

6 Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co. v. Wilson, 200 Mich. 313, L. R. A. 1918E, 763. 167 N. W. 55 (citing and purporting to follow, Rodij-keit v. Andrews, 74 O. S. 104, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 564, 6 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 761, 77 N. E. 747].

7 Mallin v. Wenham, 209 111. 252, 101 Am. St. Rep. 233, 65 L. R. A. 602, 70 N. E. 564.

6 Heller v. Lutz, 254 Mo. 704, L. R. A. 1915B, 191, 164 S. W. 123.

See, The Validity of Laws Regulating Wage Assignment, by Guy M. Blake, 5 Illinois Law Review, 343.

9 Jump v. Bernier, 221 Mass. 241, 108 N. E. 1027.

10 Brown v. Long, 192 Ala. 72, 68 So, 324.

An assignment of wages for more than two years is forbidden in Maasachusetts. McCallum v. Simplex Electrical Co., 197 Mass. 388, 83 N. E. 1108. 11 Steinbach v. Brant, 79 Minn. 383, 79 Am. St. Rep. 494, 82 N. W. 651; Leitch v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 95 Minn. 35, 103 N. W. 704.

If the assignment of wages is without limit as to time of amount,11 or if made with intent to defraud the creditors of the assignor,12 the assignment is voidable at the instance of creditors of the assignor. A statute intended to protect attaching creditors, which provides that as against attaching creditors an assignment of future earnings shall have no effect unless in writing and recorded, applies to wages and has no application to the assignment of the amount to become due under a contract.13 An assignment of wages to be earned under a contract of employment not yet entered into, but which employer and employe then expected to enter into in a short time, has been held valid in equity.14

An assignment of wages to be earned under a contract of employment which has not yet been entered into, is inoperative,15 even as between assignor and assignee.16 Even if a contract of employment is in existence when the assignment is made, yet if it is abandoned thereafter by the assignor,17 or if it expires by efflux of time,18 and in either case is thereafter renewed, the assignment is ineffectual as to wages earned under such renewal. An assignment of wages ends with the expiration of the contract of employment.19 It does not revive with a new employment.20

12 O'Connor v. Meehan, 47 Minn. 247, 49 N. W. 982; Dow v. Taylor, 71 Vt. 337, 76 Am. St. Rep. 775, 45 Atl. 220.

13 Berlin Iron Bridge Co. v. Banking Co., 76 Conn. 477, 57 Atl. 275.

14 Edwards v. Peterson, 80 Me. 367, 6 Am. St. Rep. 207, 14 Atl. 936.

15 Illinois. Mallin v. Wendham, 209 111. 252, 70 N. E. 564.

Massachusetts. Mulhall v. Quinn, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 105, 61 Am. Dec. 414; Eagan v. Luby, 133 Mass. 543.

Michigan. Neuman v. Mining Co., 57 Mich. 97, 23 X. W. 600.

Nebraska. Richards v. Chicago, etc., Ry., 100 Neb. 505, 160 N. W. 892.

New Hampshire. Runnels v. Bosquet, N. I. & S. Co., 60 N. H. 38.

Ohio. Tolman v. Steel Roofing Co., 6 Ohio N. P. 467

Pennsylvania. Lehigh Valley Ry. v. Woodring, 116 Pa. St. 513, 9 Atl. 58.

Rhode Island. O'Keefe v. Allen, 20 R. I. 414, 78 Am. St. Rep. 884, 39 Atl. 752.

Wisconsin. Porte v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 162 Wis. 446, 156 N. W. 469.

16 Lehigh Valley R. R. v. Woodring, 116 Pa. St. 513, 9 Atl. 58. (Hence if the debtor pays the assignee over the objection of the assignor, it is still liable to the assignor. In this case there was no time limited within which the assigned wages were to be earned. The court said: "A man may not sell himself into slavery.") Porte v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 162 Wis. 446, 156 N. W. 469.

17 O'Keefe v. Allen, 20 R. I. 414, 78 Am. St. Rep. 884, 39 Atl. 752.

18 Herbert v. Bronson, 125 Mass. 475.

19Raulines v. Levi, - Mass, - , 121 N. E. 500.

20 Raulines v. Levi, - Mass. - , 121 N. E. 500.

However, an assignment made before a contract of employment is entered into is upheld in equity as to wages earned under subsequent contracts, if the assignment is on valuable consideration, not in fraud of third persons, and if the rights of third persons have not intervened.21 The subsequent ratification of such an assignment by the assignor, after the fund has been acquired by him, renders the original assignment operative.22 Claims for services not yet rendered,23 for a building contract not yet performed,24 or for property sold but not yet delivered,25 can be assigned in equity. So the right of a mortgagee to securities to be issued thereafter can be assigned.26

Whether future earnings or accounts in a business in which the assignor is engaged, but not to be acquired by any contracts which are in existence when the assignment is made, are subject to assignment or not, is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority. In some jurisdictions such interests are held to be assignable,27 at least in equity.28 In other jurisdictions such assignment is held to be inoperative.29 If A has no contract for the sale of goods to B, A's order in favor of C upon B for all goods sold by A to B, is inoperative.30 If A assigns to C A's future book accounts which are to arise out of A's established business, but not out of any existing contracts, such assignment is inoperative as against A's subsequent trustee in bankruptcy.31

21 Jermyn v. Moffitt, 75 Pa. St. 399. See also, Edwards v. Peterson, 80

Me. 367, 6 Am. St. Rep. 207, 14 Atl. 936; Rodijkeit v. Andrews, 74 O. S. 104, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 564, 6 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 761, 77 N. E. 747.

22 Farnsworth v. Jackson, 32 Me. 419.

23 Threshing wheat. Sandwich Mfg. Co. v. Robinson, 83 la. 567, 14 L. R. A. 126, 49 X. W. 1031. Hauling wood. Merchants', etc., Bank v. Barnes, 18 Mont. 335, 56 Am. St. Rep. 586, 47 L R. A. 737, 45 Pac. 218. Printing. Field v. New York, 6 N. Y. 179, 57 Am. Dec. 435.

24 Board of Education v. Pressed Brick Co., 13 Utah 211, 44 Pac. 709.

25 Wadhams v. Inman, 38 Or. 143, 63 Pac. 11.

26 Central Trust Co. v. Improvement Co., 169 N. Y. 314, 62 X. E. 387.

27 Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co. v. Wilson, 200 Mich. 313, L. R. A. 1918E, 763, 167 N. W. 55.

28 Tailby v. Official Receiver, L. R. 13 App. Cas. 523 [overruling, Belding v. Read, 3 Hurl. & C. 955]; Preston National Bank v. Middlings Purifier Co. 84 Mich. 364, 47 N. W. 502; Field v. New York, 6 N. Y. 179, 57 Am. Dec. 435.

29 Clanton Bank v. Robinson, 195 Ala. 194, 70 So. 270; Taylor v. Barton-Child Co., 228 Mass. 126, L. R. A. 1918A, 124, 117 N. E. 43; O'Neil v. Wm. B. H. Kerr Co., 124 Wis. 234, 70 L. R. A. 338 [sub nomine, O'Neil v. Helmke, 102 N. W. 573].

30 O'Neil v. Wm. B. H. Kerr Co., 124 Wis. 234, 70 L. R. A. 338 [sub nomine, O'Neil v. Helmke, 102 N. W. 573].

31 Taylor v. Barton-Child Co., 228 Mass. 126, L. R. A. 1918A, 124, 117 N. E. 43.

In order to perfect the assignment, however the fund assigned must come into existence.32