An assignment of a laborer's wages due from a corporation gives the assignee the same right as the assignor to recover from the stockholders.1 So an assignee of a note may avail himself of a power of attorney to confess judgment in favor of the holder.2 An assignee may use the debt assigned as a set-off.3 He may interpose the same defenses against a set-off sought to be made against the debt assigned to him as his assignor could have done.4 So the assignment of a claim carries with it the right to sue in rescission for fraud,5 or the right to sue to set aside a fraudulent conveyance,6 though such right of action could not be assigned apart from such claim. So an assignee has the same right as his assignor to rescind for the fraud of the adversary party and recover on quantum meruit.7 The assignment of a property interest or a contract does not of itself carry with it a right of action for fraud in the transaction by which the assignor acquired such contract or property interest from the adversary party thereto.8 If A assigns stock to C, such assignment does not of itself transfer A's right of action against B for fraud in the sale of such stock by B to A.9 If A assigns to C his claim against B for a commission, such assignment does not transfer A's right of action against B for fraudulently representing his authority to employ A as a broker.10 So an assignment of a warehouse receipt for wheat carries a right of action for a prior conversion of the wheat.11 An assignment of the purchase money due on the sale of a chattel sold conditionally on acceptance by the purchaser, carries the right to the chattel if the purchaser refuses to accept it.12

9 Floete v. Brown, 104 Ia. 154, 66 Am. St. Rep. 434, 73 N. W. 483.

10 Greer v. Equity Co-operative Exchange, 137 Minn. 300, L. R. A. 1917F, 440, 163 N. W. 527.

11 Abrahamson v. Lamberson, 72 Minn. 308; 76 N. W. 226 (where recovery was had against a vendor of realty for wrongful taking of possession and removal of buildings).

See also, Berg v. Yakima Valley Canal Co., 83 Wash. 451, L. R. A. 1915D, 292, 145 Pac. 619.

12 Munson v. Bank, 19 Wash. 125, 52 Pac. 1011 (negligence of a collecting bank to notify indorsers of nonpayment) .

13 Citizens' National Bank v. Loomis, 100 Ia. 266, 62 Am. St. Rep. 571, 69 N. W. 443 (negligence of officer in levying attachment).

14 Malloy v. Malloy, 35 Neb. 224, 52 N. W. 1097.

15 Southern Paving Co. v. Chattanooga (Tenn. Ch. App.), 48 S. W. 92. (Assignee of benefits of a street paving contract may make repairs during the five-year period and collect the fund reserved to enforce such repairs, the assignor having given bond to the assiomee to make required repairs.)

16 See Sec. 2261.

17 Wheelock v. Hull, 124 Ia. 752, 100 N. W. 863; Dickerson v. Spokane, 35 Wash. 414, 77 Pac. 730.

1Day v. Vinson, 78 Wis. 198, 10 L. R. A. 205, 47 N. W. 269.

2 Snyder v. Critchfield, 44 Neb. 66, 62 N. W. 306 (under Pennsylvania law).

3 Nix v. Ellis, 118 Ga. 345, 98 Am St. Rep. 11l, 45 S. E. 404; Jack v. Klepson, 196 Pa. St. 187, 79 Am. St. Rep. 699, 46 Atl. 479.

4 Defense of limitations. Walker v. Burgess, 44 W. Va. 399, 67 Am. St. Rep. 775, 30 S. E. 99.

Defense that debt was for personal services (painting a picture) and by statute not subject to set-off. Mil-lington v. Laurer, 89 Ia. 322, 48 Am. St. Rep. 385, 56 N. W. 533.

5 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Puller, 61 Conn. 252, 29 Am. St. Rep. 196, 23 Atl. 193; National Valley Bank v. Hancock, 100 Va. 101, 40 S. E. fill.

6 Howd v. Breckenridge, 97 Mich. 65, 56 N. W. 221; Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 W. Va. 234, 23 8. E. 812.

7 Hicks v. Steel, 126 Mich..408, 85 N. W. 1121.

8 Huston v. Ohio & Colorado Smelting & Refining Co., - Colo. - , 165 Pac. 251; Lee v. Fisk, 222 Mass. 418, 109 N. E. 833; Sorenson v. Kribs, 82 Or. 130, 161 Pac. 405.

9 Huston v. Ohio & Colorado Smelting & Refining Co., - Colo. - ,165 Pac. 251.

10 Sorenson v. Kribs, 82 Or. 130, 161 Pac. 405.

11 Dolliff v. Robbins, 83 Minn. 498. 85 Am. St. Rep. 466, 86 N. W. 772.

12Caulneld v. Van Brunt, 173 Pa. St. 428, 34 Atl. 230.