Contracts others than personal contracts, or contracts containing a provision against assignment, or contracts forbidden to be assigned by statute, may be assigned at modern law.1 It has been suggested that the test for assignability at modern law is whether the cause of action would have survived the assignor if he had died before he assigned it2 This test does not give especial aid in determining questions of assignability, since it merely postpones a discussion of the nature of contracts which can be assigned until the nature of contracts which survive has been ascertained. It is, furthermore, not an accurate test except as to the personal character of contracts. It is true that as to the personal character of the contract, the test for assignment and for surviving the death of a party while the contract remains executory are the same. As to the effect of a covenant against assignment, and as to the effect of statutes which forbid assignment specifically, the test is not the same. Contracts of these classes can not be assigned, but they survive the death of a party.

1 England. Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Mfrs. [1902], 2 K. B. 660.

United States. Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co., 133 U. S. 473, 33 L. ed. 674; American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co., 248 Fed. 172.

Alabama. Wilkins v. Hardaway, 159 Ala. 565, 48 So. 678; Morgan v. Center, 133 Ark. 247, 202 S. W. 235

California. La Rue v. Groezinger, 84 Cal. 281, 18 Am. St. Rep. 179, 24 Pac. 42.

Colorado. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Provolt, 42 Colo. 103, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 587, 93 Pac. 1126; Wasem v. Gray, 43 Colo. 140, 95 Pac. 557

Connecticut. Lemmon v. Strong, 59 Conn. 448, 21 Am. St. Rep. 123, 12 L. R. A. 270, 22 Atl. 293.

Florida. Hall v. O Neil Turpentine Co., 56 Fla. 324, 16 Am. & Eng.Ann. Cas. 738, 47 So. 609.

Illinois. Savage v. Gregg, 150 111. 161, 37 N. E. 312; Moore v. Gariglietti, 228 111. 143, 81 N. . 826.

Iowa. Dorr v. Alford, 111 Ia. 278, 82 N. W. 789; Price v. Gushing, 135 la. 457, 110 N. W. 1030.

Kentucky. Brackett's Administrator v. Boreing's Administrator (Ky.), 110

S. W. 276; Enterprise Manufacturing Co. v. Taulbee, 152 Ky. 783, 154 S. W. 27.

Maine. Madunkeunk Dam Co. v. E. F. Allen Clothing Co., 102 Me. 257, 66 Atl. 537.

Michigan. Rodgers v. Torrent, 111 Mich. 680, 70 N. W. 335.

Minnesota. Harbord v. Cooper, 49 Minn. 466, 45 N. W. 860; Semper v. Coates, 93 Minn. 76, 100 N. W. 662.

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. Forbes v. Omaha, 79 Neb.

6, 112 N. W. 326.

New York. Smith v. Craig, 211 N. Y. 456, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 937, 105 N. E. 798.

North Carolina. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co. v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 147 N. Car. 368, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 223, 61 S. E. 185.

Ohio. Rodijkeit v. Andrews;' 74. S. 104, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 564, 77 N. E. 747.

Oklahoma. Standard Sewing Machine Co. v. New State Shirt & Overall Mfg. Co., 42 Okla. 554, 141 Pac. 1111.

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. 925.

Tennessee. Bradford v. Montgomery Furniture Co., 115 Tenn. 610, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 979, 92 S. W. 1104.

Texas. Provident National Bank v. C. D. Hartnett Co., 100 Tex. 214, 97 S.