A creditor can not at law assign a part of his claim against his debtor to a third person so as to subject such debtor to two or more actions instead of one, without the consent of such debtor.1 The custom of merchants can not authorize partial assignment of a bill of exchange,2 and such custom was said to be void.3 A partial assignment, though champertous, can not defeat the right of the original creditor or claimant.4 The rule which forbids partial assignment at law prevents the use of a partial assignment as a set-off as well as a cause of action.5

23 State v. Dittmar, 120 Ind. 64, 388, 22 N. E. 88, 22 N. E. 299.

24 O'Connor v. Walter, 37 Neb. 267, 40 Am. St. Rep. 486, 23 L. R. A. 650, 56 N. W. 867; Bishop v. Middleton, 43 Neb. 10, 26 L. R. A. 445, 61 N. W. 129; Gordon v. Wageman, 77 Neb. 185, 108 N. W. 1067.

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

A statute which renders invalid notes secured by assignment of wages which does not show such security on its face, does not apply to an assignment of wages without the transfer of a note. Monarch Discount Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 285 111. 233, 120 N. E. 743.

It may be invalid for more than a certain period prescribed by statute. McCallum v. Simplex Electrical Co., 197 Mass. 388, 83 N. E. 1108.

26 Jump v. Bernier, 221 Mass. 241, 108

N. E. 1027. 27 Brown v. Long, 192 Ala. 72, 68 So.

324. (Under such a statute, an assignment "for value received" is inoperative.)

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

29 McCallum v. Simple Electrical Co., 197 Mass. 388, 83 N. E. 1108.

30 State v. Nix, 135 La. 811, 66 So. 230 (see, however, Bluefields S. S. Co. v. Lala Ferreras Cangelosi S. S. Co., 133 La. 424, 63 So. 96).

1 United States. Mandeville v. Welch,

18 U. S. (5 Wheat.) 277, 5 L. ed. 87; Sheatz v. Markley, 249 Fed. 315; John A. Schmitt's Sons v. Shadrach, 251 Fed. 874.

Alabama. Kansas City, etc., Ry. v. Robertson, 109 Ala. 296, 19 So. 432.

California. Clancy v. Plover, 107 Cal. 272, 40 Pac. 394; Home Ins. Co. v. Ry.,

19 Colo. 46, 34 Pac. 281.

Colorado. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Provolt, 42 Colo. 103, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 587, 93 Pac. 1126; Welch v. Mayer, 4 Colo. App. 440, 36 Pac. 613;

The rule against partial assignment is solely for the benefit of the debtor, and is intended to prevent him from being exposed to two separate suits on one contract. Accordingly, a partial assignment is valid if it makes assignor and assignee co-owners in the claim assigned, and they both join in one action to enforce the entire claim.6 So if the debtor assents to a partial assignment it is as valid as a total assignment would have been. No one can thereafter object to the assignment as partial,7 neither the debtor,8 nor the assignor,9 nor the attaching creditors of the assignor.10

Snedden v. Harmes, 5 Colo. App. 477, 39 Pac. 68.

Georgia. Rivera v. Wright, 117 Ga. 81, 43 S. E. 499.

Illinois. Chicago Ry. v. Nichols, 57 111. 464.

Kansas. German Fire Ins. Co. v. Bul-lene, 51 Kan. 764, 33 Pac. 467.

Louisiana. Red River Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Louisiana Petrolithic Construction Co., 142 La. 838, 77 So. 763.

Maine. Getchell v. Maney, 69 Me. 442.

Massachusetts. Gibson v. Cooke, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 15, 32 Am. Dec. 194.

Missouri. Burnett v. Crandall, 63 Mo. 410.

Nebraska. Hopkins v. Washington County, 56 Neb. 596, 77 N. W. 53.

Ohio. Stanbery v. Smythe, 13 O. S. 495; P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Vol-kert, 58 O. S. 362, 50 N. E. 924; Pennsylvania Co. v. Thatcher, 78 O. S. 175, 85 N. E. 55.

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

Wisconsin. Skobis v. Ferge, 102 Wis. 122, 78 N. W. 426; Cook v. Menasha, 103 Wis. 6, 79 N. W. 26; Dugan v. Knapp, 105 Wis. 320, 81 N. W. 412.

2 Hawkins v. Cardee, 1 Salk. 65, Carth. 466, 1 Ld. Raym. 360.

3 Hawkins v. Cardee, 1 Salk. 65, Carth. 466, 1 Ld. Raym. 360.

In the report 1 Lord Raymond, it is said that this is not the custom of merchants and that the court will take judicial notice that the custom is not as pleaded.

4 Prosky v. Clark, 32 Nev. 441, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 512, 109 Pac. 793.

5 Wamsley v. Ward, 61 W. Va. 65,

55 S. E. 998.

6 Evans v. Land & Coal Co., 80 Fed. 433, 25 C. C. A. 531; Schilling v. Mullen, 55 Minn. 122, 43 Am. St. Rep. 475,

56 N. W. 586; Whittemore v Oil Co., 184 N. Y. 565, 21 Am. St. Rep. 708, 27 N. F. 244; Ramsey v. Johnson, 8 Wyo. 476, 80 Am. St. Rep. 948, 58 Pac. 755.

7 United States. Methven v. Power Co., 66 Fed. 113, 13 C. C. A. 362.

Indiana. Manchester Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 13 Ind. App. 365, 55 Am. St. Rep. 225, 40 N. E. 926, 41 N. E. 847.

Iowa. Des Moines County v. Hink-lev, 62 Ia. 637, 17 N. W. 915.

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

Washington. Grippin v. Benham, 5 Wash. 589, 32 Pac. 555.

8 Manufacturing Co. v. Price, 49 W. Va. 432, 38 S. E. 526.

9 Potter v. Banking Co., 59 Kan. 455, 53 Pac. 520.

10Burditt v. Porter, 63 Vt. 296, 25 Am. St. Rep. 763, 21 AtL 955.

In equity, however, it is always possible to make all the parties in interest parties to the action and have their rights determined thereby. Accordingly, the reason which the common law had for prohibiting partial assignments does not exist in equity, and partial assignments are enforced, even if the debtor does not consent thereto.11 Neither the debtor,12 subsequent assignees,13 nor attaching creditors,14 can object in equity to an assignment as partial. Even if separate actions are brought by the several partial assignees, the court may consolidate them and the defendant debtor has no ground of complaint except as to costs made before consolidation.15 An assignment of a note carries a proportionate interest in a mortgage given to secure notes of which this is one.16 If the debtor has paid the amount of the debt to the assignor before notice, and the fund is in the hands of the receiver of the assignor, equity will permit the partial assignee to file a bill to enforce such assignment.17