At modern law, in most jurisdictions, a contract may be assigned as well at common law as in equity.1 The assignee may bring an action in his own name against the debtor.2 In some jurisdictions the action may be brought in the name of the assignor or in the name of the assignee.3 The qualifications and exceptions to the general rule that contracts may be assigned at modern law, will be discussed subsequently.4 This change from the original common-law rule is largely due to statute. The statutes which have this effect may be divided into two classes. One class specifically provides that the assignee may bring an action in his own name.5 Some of these statutes are very broad.6 Others are quite narrow in their scope, being limited to certain classes of contracts,7 or to cases in which the assignee has filed the assignment or a copy thereof,8 or to cases in which the assignment is in writing,9 or to cases in which the assignor has died.10 The other class provides that actions must be brought in the name of the real party in interest, thus enabling the assignee to sue at law in his own name.11

Maine. Smith v. Berry, 18 Me. 122.

Massachusetts. Mowry v. Todd, 12 Mass281. ,

Michigan. Tefft v. McNoah, 0 Mich. 201.

New York. Jessel v. Williamsburgh Ins. Co., 3 Hill (N. Y.) 88.

Pennsylvania. De Barry v. Withers, 44 Pa. St. 356.

Texas. Ross v. Smith, 10 Tex. 171, 70 Am. Dec. 327.

16 Weston v. Barker, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 276, 7 Am. Dec. 319.

1 England. Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Mfrs. [1903], A. C. 414.

Scotland. Asphaltic Limestone & Concrete Co. v. Glasgow [1907], S. C. 463, 14 Scots. Law. T. 706.

United States. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Ehrich, 230 Fed. 1005; American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co., 248 Fed. 172.

Arkansas. Leader Co. v. Little Rock Ry. & Electric Co., 120 Ark. 221, 179 S. W. 358; Morgan v. Center, 133 Ark. 247, 202 S. W. 235.

Colorado. Doyle v. Nesting, 37 Colo. 522, 88 Pac. 862.

Connecticut. City Bank v. Thorp, 78 Conn. 211, 61 Atl. 428.

Georgia. Covington v. Rosenbusch, - Ga. - , 97 S. E. 78.

Iowa. Sickles v. Lauman, - Ia. - 169 N. W. 670.

Kansas. Nieschburg v. Nothern, 101 Kan. 110, 165 Pac. 857.

Louisiana. Dugue v. Levy, 120 La. 369, 45 So. 280.

Maine. Sleeper v. Gagne, 99 Me..306, 59 Atl. 472; Rogers v. Brown, 103 Me. 478, 70 Atl. 206.

Massachusetts. Bryne v. Dorey, 221 Mass. 399, 109 N. E. 146.

Michigan. C. H. Little Co. v. Cad-well Transit Co., 197 Mich. 481, 163 N. W. 952.

Minnesota. Anderson v. Amidon, 114 Minn. 202, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 647, 130 N. W. 1002.

Missouri. McGinnis v. McGinn is, 274 Mo. 285, 202 S. W. 1087.

Montana. Milwaukee Land Co. v. Ruesink, 50 Mont. 489, 148 Pac. 396; Standard Sewing Machine Co. v. Smith, 51 Mont. 245, 152 Pac. 38.

Nebraska. Vanderlip v. Barnes, 101 Neb. 573, 163 N. W. 856.

North Carolina. Anderson v. American Suburban Corp., 155 N. Car. 131, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 896, 71 S. E. 221.

Oklahoma. Marker v. Gillam, 54 Okla. 766, 154 Pac. 351; Stringer v. Kessler, 56 Okla. 50, 155 Pac. 867.

Oregon. Corvallis & A. R. R. Co. v. Portland, E. & E. Ry. Co., 84 Or. 524, 163 Pac. 1173.

South Dakota. Sherman v. Harris, 36 S. D. 50, 153 N. W. 025.

Texas. Malakoff Gin Co. v. Riddle-sperger, 108 Tex. 273, 192 S. W. 530.

Washington. Dickersoh v. Spokane, 26 Wash. 292, 66 Pac. 381; Lindblom v. Johnston, 92 Wash. 171, 158 Pac. 972.

For a discussion of the nature and effect of assignment, see The Alienability of Choses in Action, by Walter Wheeler Cook, 29 Harvard Law Review, 816; Is the Right of an Assignee of a Chose in Action Legal or Equitable? by Samuel Williston, 30 Harvard Law Review, 99; The Alienability of Choses in Action: A Reply to Professor Williston, by Walter Wheeler Cook, 30 Harvard Law Review, 449, and The Word "Equitable" and its Application to Assignment of Choses in Action, by Samuel Williston, 31 Harvard Law Review, 822.

2 United States. Withers v. Greene, 50 U. S. (9 How.) 213, 13 L. ed. 109.

Arkansas. Morgan v. Center, 133 Ark. 247, 202 S. W. 235.

Massachusetts. Bryne v. Dorey, 221 Mass. 399, 109 N. E. 146.

Michigan. Final v. Backus, 18 Mich. 218.

Missouri. Hill v. McPherson, 15 Mo. 204, 55 Am. Dec. 142.

New York. McKee v. Judd, 12 N. Y. 622, 64 Am. Dec. 515.

3 Dugue v. Levy, 120 La. 369, 45 So. 280; Rogers v. Brown, 103 Me. 478, 70 Atl. 206.

4 See Sec. 1259 et seq.

5 Alabama. Wells v. Cody, 112 Ala. 278, 20 So. 381.

Maine. Sleeper v. Gagne, 99 Me. 306, 59 Atl. 472.

Michigan. Gale v. Mayhew, 161 Mich. 96, 29 L. R. A. (N.S.) 648, 125 N. W. 781.

Mississippi. Wright v. Hardy, 76 Miss. 524, 24 So. 697.

Texas. Cleveland v. Heidenheimer, 92 Tex. 108, 46 S. W. 30.

Virginia. Phillips v. Portsmouth, 115 Va. 180, 78 S. E. 651.

6 Outtown v. Dulin, 72 Md. 536, 20 Atl. 134; Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543, 53 Atl. 598; Phillips v. Portsmouth, 115 Va. 180, 78 S. E. 651.

7 Gale v. Mayhew, 161 Mich. 96, 29 L. R. A. (N.S.) 648, 126 N. W. 781; Marrigan v. Page, 23 Tenn. (4 Humph.) 246.

Statutes of this sort are usually drawn in very broad and general terms, with practically no restrictions. If the statute specifically allows the assignee to sue in his own name, this right is not taken away by a provision in the contract providing that the assignee may sue in the name of the assignor.12 Even where such statutes are not in effect, the assignee's disabilities at common law are now limited to the necessity of his suing in his assignor's name.13