"The plaintiff took his assignment by an instrument separate and apart from the policy itself. He allowed the possession of the policy to remain unaltered. It is true that he did this on the false representation that it was held by the insurance company as security for a premium loan; but the fact remains that it was his voluntary act. He took no other precaution, either by giving notice to the company or otherwise. He testified that he did not even tell Sommer that the policy had not been delivered to him. He trusted everything to Williams; and his own testimony was that he did this by reason of his 'full confidence in Williams.' He knowingly allowed the circumstances to be such as to indicate that Sommer retained the full ownership of the policy, and such that no inquiry of the company would disclose anything to the con-trary or throw any doubt upon Som-mer's title. For this reason, such cases as Mente v. Townsend, 68 Ark. 391, are not applicable here. The case is a stronger one than Bridge v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 152 Mass. 343, and the reasoning of that opinion is decisive against the plaintiff. There are no circumstances upon which any distinction can be made in his favor." Herman v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 218 Mass. 181, 105 N. E. 450.

5 Herman v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 218 Mass. 181, 105 N. E. 450.

6 Bridge v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 152 Mass. 343, 25 N. E. 612.

7 Washington Township v. First National Bank, 147 Mich. 571, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 471, 111 N. W. 349.

8 City Bank v. Thorp, 79 Conn. 194, 64 Atl. 205.

9 England. Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. 1; Wigram v. Buckley [1894], 3 Ch. 483;

In re Lake [1903], 1 K. B. 151; In re Phillips [1903], 1 Ch. 183.

United States. Spain v. Hamilton's Administrator, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 604, 17 L. ed. 619 (the first assignment was a "blind assignment," naming no amount, and no assignee, and not describing the fund assigned); Christmas v. Russell, 81 IT. S. (14 Wall.) 69, 20 L. ed. 762 (no assignment held to exist); Laclede Bank v. Schuler, 120 U. S. 511, 30 L. ed. 704 (a check held to give no lien on the deposit until presentation, as against an assignee for the benefit of creditors); Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 634, 38 L. ed. 578 (a contract non-assignable by statute as well as by express contractural provision); Methven v. Power Co., 66 Fed. 113, 13 C. C. A. 362; In re Hawley Down-Draft Furnace Co., 233 Fed. 451 (denying rehearing, In re Hawley Down-Draft Furnace Co., 230 Fed. 471).

California. Graham Paper Co. v. Pembroke, 124 Cal. 117, 71 Am. St. Rep. 26, 44 L. R. A. 632, 56 Pac. 627 (evidences of debt left with assignor so as to mislead second assignee; Widen-mann v. Weniger, 164 Cal. 667, 130 Pac. 421.

Connecticut. Vanbuskirk v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co,, 14 Conn. 141, 36 Am. Dec. 473.

Iowa. Van Laningan v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry., 164 la. 161, 145 N. W. 464, Louisiana. Newman v. Irwin, 43 La. Ann. 1114, 10 So. 181.

Maryland. Lambert v. Morgan, 110 Md. 1, 132 Am. St. Rep. 412, 17 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 439, 72 Atl. 407.

Missouri. Richards v. Griggs, 16 Mo. 416, 57 Am. Dec. 240.

Mississippi Enochs-Havis Lumber Co. v. Newcomb, 79 Miss 462, 30 So. 608.

New Jersey. Jenkinson v. New York Finance Co., 79 N. J. Eq. 247, 82 Atl. 36.

Oklahoma. Jack v. National Bank, 17 Okla. 430, 89 Pac. 219 [overruling, Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 91, 54 Pac. 413], Market National Bank v. Raspberry, 34 Okla. 243, L. R. A. 1916E, 79, 124 Pac. 758.

Pennsylvania. Phillips' Estate (No. 3), 205 Pa. St. 515, 97 Am. St. Rep. 746, 66 L. R. A. 760, 55 Atl. 213, American Exch. National Bank v. Federal National Bank, 226 Pa. St. 483, 27 L. R. A. (N.S.) 666, 75 Atl. 683.

Tennessee. Clodfelter v. Cox, 33 Tenn. (1 Sneed) 330, 69 Am. Dec. 157; Peters v. Goetz, 136 Tenn. 257, 188 S. W. 1144.

Vermont. Ward v. Morrison, 25 Vt. 593.

Virginia. Coffman v. Liggett's Administrator, 107 Va. 418, 59 S. E. 392.

10 See Sec. 2275.

11 "To constitute an assignment of a debt or other chose in action, in equity, no particular form is necessary. A draft drawn by A or B in favor of C for a valuable consideration, amounts to a valid assignment to C of so much of the funds of A in the hands of B. Any order, writing, or act which makes an appropriation of a fund, amounts to an equitable assignment of the fund. The reason is, that the fund being a matter not assignable at law, nor capable of manual possession, an appropriation of it is all that the nature of the case admits of, and therefore it is held good in a court of equity. As the assignee is generally entitled to all the remedies of the assignor, so lie is subject to all the equities between the assignor and his debtor. But in order to perfect his title against the debtor it is indispensable that the assignee should immediately give notice of the assignment to the debtor, for otherwise a priority of right may be obtained by a subsequent assignee, or the debt may be discharged by a payment to the assignee before such notice. No cases can be cited, or were in conflict with those upon which wo rely for the judgment which we are about to give in this case." Spain v. Hamilton's Administrator, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 604, 17 L. ed. 619.

Even 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.17

12 Peters v. Goetz, 136 Tenn. 257, 188 S. W. 1144.

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

14 Jack v. National Bank, 17 Okla. 430, 80 Pac. 210 [citing and following, Spain v. Hamilton's Administrator, 68

U. 8. (1 Wall.) 604, 17 L. ed. 610, and Methven v. Staten Island Light, Heat & Power Co., 66 Fed. 113].

15 Market National Bank v. Raspberry, 34 Okla. 243, L. R. A. 1016E, 79, 124 Pac. 758.

16 "It is a mistake to suppose that the profits to be derived from the performance of a contract, as yet unexecuted, are something separable from the performance - as a coupon is detachable from a bond - and can be sent floating through the channels of commerce as a separate obligation. The profits are tied up in the contract to such an extent that the promise in respect to them becomes of value only when he who makes the promise shall have earned the profits through the performance of the contract. And when the contract, being wholly executory, is transferred to a third party who is accepted by the promisor in lieu of the original contractor, such third party enters upon the performance of the contract free from any disposition of the profits made by the original [contractor] contract or before the substitution." Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 634, 38 L. ed. 578.

17 Newton v. Newton, 46 Minn 33, 48 N. W. 450; Phillips' Estate (No. 3), 205 Pa. St. 515, 07 Am. St. Rep. 746, 55 Atl. 213.