In the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary, a contract which would otherwise be assignable may be non-assignable without the consent of the adversary party by inserting a clause providing that it shall not be assigned.1 Such provisions against assignment have been upheld in building and construction contracts,2 lighting contracts,3 insurance contracts,4 provisions making claims for wages nonassignable,5 theater tickets,6 and railway tickets.7 Such a clause seems to be inoperative in most jurisdictions, in contracts for the sale of realty, although various reasons for such result are assigned.8

3Augusta Baseball Association v. Thomasville Baseball Club, 147 6a. 201, L. R. A. 1917F, 841, 93 S. E. 208.

The use of the word "assigns" tends to show assent in advance to assignment. National Life Ins. Co. v. Beck & Gregg Hardware Co., 148 Ga. 757, 98 S. E. 266.

4 Augusta Baseball Association v. Thomasville Baseball Club, 147 Ga. 201, L. R. A. 1917F, 841, 93 S. E. 208.

5 Augusta Baseball Association v. Thomasville Baseball Club, 147 Ga. 201, L. R. A. 1917F, 841, 93 S. E. 208 (sale of a baseball player).

8 Stitt v. Horton, 166 Ind. 555, 76 N. E. 241 (sole question one as to discharge of assessment against one property owner); Ernst v. Kunkle, 5 O. S. 520.

1 United States. Delaware County v. Jock Co., 133 U. S. 473, 32 L. ed. 674; Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 634, 38 L.

ed. 578; Bitterman v. R. R., 207 U. S. 205, 52 L. ed. 171.

Maine. International Wood Co. v. National Assurance Co., 99 Me. 415, 105 Am. St. Rep. 288, 59 Atl. 544.

Nebraska. Zetterlund v. Texas, etc., Co., 55 Neb. 355, 75 N. W. 860.

New York. Collister v. Hayman, 183 N. Y. 250, 111 Am. St. Rep. 740, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1188, 76 N. E. 20.

Ohio. Kinner v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 69 O. S., 339, 69 N. E. 614.

Oklahoma. Barringer v. Bes Line Construction Co., 23 Okla. 131, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 597, 99 Pac. 775.

Washington. Lockerby v. Amon, 64 Wash. 24, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1064, 116 Pac. 463.

2 Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 634, 38 L. ed. 578; Mueller v. University, 195 Ill. 236, 88 Am. St. Rep. 194, 63 N. E. 110.

3Omaha v. Oil Co., 55 Neb. 337, 75 N. W. 859.

Under a statute specifically authorizing the assignment of contract rights, however, the words "not transferable" do not prevent assignment.9 By express statutory provision a contract, which by its terms is non-assignable, may be assignable in spite of such provision.10 Merchandise coupon books, which by their terms are not transferable, may be assigned by special statutory provision.11 On the other hand, a general statutory provision to the effect that things in action which arise out of obligations may be transferred by the owner, does not render inoperative a covenant to the effect that a claim for wages could not be transferred and that it must be receipted for personally.12

4 Maine. International Wood Co. v. National Assurance Co., 99 Me. 415, 105 Am. St. Rep. 288, 59 Atl. 544.

Massachusetts. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 138 Mass. 24, 52 Am. Rep. 245; Merrill v. Ins. Co., 169 Mass. 10, 61 Am. St. Rep. 268, 47 N. E. 439.

New Hampshire. Dube v. Ins. Co., 64 N. H. 527, 1 L. R. A. 57, 15 Atl. 141.

Ohio. Charch v. Charch, 57 O. S. 561, 49 N. E. 408.

Wisconsin. McQuillan v. Life Association, 112 Wis. 665, 88 Am. St. Rep. 986, 56 L. R. A. 233, 88 N. W. 925, 87 N. W. 1069.

5Barringer v. Bes Line Construction Co., 23 Okla. 131, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 597, 99 Pac. 775.

6 Collister v. Hayman, 183 N. Y. 250, 111 Am. St. Rep. 740, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1188, 76'N. E. 20.

7Bitterman v. R. R., 207 U. S. 205, 52 L. ed. 171; Kinner v. Lake Shore, etc., Ry., 69 O. S. 339, 69 N. E. 614.

8 United States. Cheney v. Bilby, 74 Fed. 52.

Georgia. Corvart v. Singletary, 140 Oa. 435, 47 L. R. A. (N.S.) 621, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1116, 79 S. E. 196.

Iowa. Thomassen v. De Goey, 133 Ia. 278, 119 Am. St. Rep. 605, 110 N. W. 581.

Minnesota. Johnson v. Eklund, 72 Minn. 195, 75 N. W. 14.

Nebraska. Wagner v. Cheney, 16 Neb. 202, 20 N. W. 222.

New Jersey. Grigg v. Landis, 21 N. J. Eq. 494.

In Washington full effect is given to such provision. Lockerby v. Amon, 64 Wash. 24, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1064, 116 Pac. 463.

9 Leader Co. v. Little Rock Ry. & Electric Co., 120 Ark. 221, 179 S. W. 358; Bewick Lumber Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. 539, 21 S. E. 154; Thomassen v. De Goey, 133 Ia. 278, 119 Am. St. Rep. 605, 110 N. W. 581 (under Iowa code Sec. 3046); Pond Creek Coal Co. v. Lester, 171 Ky. 811, 188 S. W. 907 (under Kentucky constitution Sec. 244 and Kentucky statutes Sec. 1350 and 2738r).

10 Thomassen v. De Goey, 133 Ia. 278, 119 Am. St. Rep. 605, 110 N. W. 581 (under Iowa code Sec. 3046).

11 Assignable under Kentucky constitution Sec. 244 and Kentucky statutes Sec. 1350 and 2738r. Pond Creek Coal Co. v. Lester, 171 Ky. 811, 188 S. W. 907.

A provision which forbids assignment is intended solely for the benefit of the creditor whose interests may be affected by assignment. If he assents to the assignment, no one can object.13 The original debtor may consent to such assignment, although he has by contract with another relieved himself from liability. Thus an insurance company which has reinsured its risks may consent to the assignment of a policy.14 The receipt of rent by the lessor from an assignee of the lessee operates as a waiver of a covenant against assignment.15 If the debtor receives notice of the assignment without objecting thereto, it is said that he thereby consents.16

While such provision prevents the assignment of a contract while executory, it does not prevent a party who has performed, from assigning his right to receive compensation,17 nor does it prevent an assignment of the right, on breach of such contract, to recover money paid thereunder.18 Such provision does not prevent assignment as collateral security.19 So a provision in an insurance policy forbidding assignment without proof of insurable interest, does not forbid assignment to a creditor not absolutely but merely as collateral security.20 If an insurance company issues a policy to the owners of the property insured, loss payable to the mortgagee as his interest may appear, a clause forbidding assignment does not prevent the mortgagee from assigning the debt and his interest under the policy to another.21 A contract for perpetual insurance, notice of assignment of interest to be given to the company in thirty days after the assignment, "to be entered and allowed," does not give the insurance company the right to forfeit the policy for assignment of which due notice is given, unless the character of the assignee is such as to increase the risk, or some other good cause for objecting to the transfer exists.22

12Barringer v. Bes Line Construction Co., 23 Okla. 131, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 597, 99 Pac. 775 (under Wilson's statutes [Oklahoma] Sec. 4163).

13 California. Norton v. Whitehead, 84 Cal. 263, 18 Am. St. Rep. 172, 24 Pac. 154.

Iowa. Wilson v. Reuter, 29 la. 176.

Kentucky. Meyer Brothers v. Gaert-ner, 106 Ky. 481 [sub nomine, Louisville Trust Co. v. Gaertner, 45 L. R. A. 513, 50 S. W. 971].

Massachusetts. Brierly v. Equitable Aid Union, 170 Mass. 218, 64 Am. St. Rep. 297, 48 N. E. 1090; Staples v. Somerville, 176 Mass. 237, 57 N. E. 380.

Minnesota. Cohen v. Todd, 130 Minn. 227 L. R. R. 1915E, 846, 153 N. W. 531.

New York. Fortunato v. Patten, 147 N. Y. 277, 41 N. E. 572; Spencer v. Myers, 150 N. Y. 269, 55 Am. St. Rep. 675, 34 L. R. A. 175, 44 N. E. 942.

14Faneuil Hall Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 63, 10 L. R. A. 423, 26 N. E. 244.

15 California. Randal v. Tatum, 98 Cal. 390, 33 Pac. 433.

Iowa. Colton v. Gorham, 72 Ia. 324, 33 N. W. 76.

Massachusetts. Porter v. Merrill, 124 Mass. 534.

Minnesota. Cohen v. Todd, 130 Minn. 227, L. R. A. 1915E, 846, 153 N. W. 531.

New York. Murray v. Harway, 56 N. Y. 337

Washington. Field v. Copping, 65 Wash. 359, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 488, 118 Pac. 329.

18 Staples v. Somerville, 176 Mass. 237, 57 N. E. 380; Burnett v. Jersey City, 31 N. J. Eq. 341; Turner v. Wells 64 N. J. L. 269, 45 Atl. 641.

17 Bank of Harlem v. Bayonne, 48 N. J. Eq. 246, 21 Atl. 478.

Contra, Omaha v. Standard Oil Co., 55 Neb. 337, 75 N. W. 859.

16 Shivley v. Water Co., 99 Cal. 259, 33 Pac. 848.

19 Butler v. Rockwell, 14 Colo. 125, 23 Pac. 462; Crouse v. Mitchell, 130 Mich. 347, 97 Am St. Rep. 479, 90 N. W. 32; Aetna Insurance Co. v. Smith, 117 Miss. 327 L. R. A. 1918D, 1158, 78 So. 289.

A provision to the effect that a gratuity fund, set aside for the families of the deceased members of a stock exchange, or a produce exchange, was a gift and not a property right which could be pledged, prevents an assignment of an interest in such fund to secure debts not related thereto; but it does not prevent an assignment for the purpose of raising money to keep such interest in force.23

A provision restricting a right of action to promisee does not prevent garnishment of such claim.24