The assignee of a contract takes no interest under the assigned contract greater than that which the original party whose interest he takes had therein, at the time when the adversary party to the contract received notice of the assignment,1 even if the assignee takes for value and without notice.2 The assignor can not impose a greater obligation upon the assignee than that to which he would have been liable if the assignment had not been made.3 A partial assignment by the principal contractor can not impose upon the property owner a liability in excess of that fixed by the mechanics lien law.4 Whether the assignee of a foreign corporation or of a partnership which has not complied with statutory requirements can maintain an action or not depends upon whether as the consequence of the violation of statutory requirements the party in default was not permitted to bring an action until he had complied with such requirements or whether the contract was void. If such contract was void the assignee could not enforce such contract.5 If the contract was not void the assignee might enforce such contract, although his assignor could not have maintained such action without complying with the statutory requirements.6 If the adversary party could have avoided a transaction for fraud, the assignee of the party who is guilty of such fraud is subject to the same defense or to the same proceeding to rescind as his assignor would have been.7 If the assignor, by his contract with the adversary parties, has dealt with them as members of a limited partnership with himself, his assignee can not hold them as partners.8 All defenses which could be made against the original party to the contract, such as illegality,9 can be made against the assignee. If the assignor has no right to a vendor's lien, the assignee has no right thereto.10

1 Bennett v. Lathrop, 71 Conn. 613, 71 Am. St. Rep. 222, 42 Atl. 634.

2De Graffenreid v. Ry., 66 Ark. 260, 50 S. W. 272.

3 Crook v. Gruell, 82 la. 736, 47 N. W. 1081. '

4Chilstrom v. Eppinger, 127 Cal. 326, 78 Am. St. Rep. 46, 50 Pac. 696.

5 Redmond v. Staton, 116 N. Car. 140, 21 8. E. 186.

1 United States. Judson v. Corcoran. 58 U. S. (17 How.) 612, 15 L. ed. 231: Deming v. Ins. Co., 78 Fed. 1; Williams v. Neely, 134 Fed. 1, 67 C. C. A. 171, 69 L. R. A. 232; Michigan Yacht & Power Co. v. Busch, 143 Fed. 929, 75 C. C. A. 109; Wagner v. Central Banking & Security Co., 249 Fed. 145, C.C.A

Alabama. Jefferson County Savings Bank v. Carland, Ala., 77 So. 704.

Arizona. Ives v. Sanguinetti, 10 Ariz. 83, 85 Pac. 480.

Colorado. Dohertv v. Doe, 18 Colo.

456, 33 Pac. 165; Watrous v. Hilliard, 38 Colo. 255, 88 Pac. 185.

Connecticut. Mereness v. DeLemos, 91 Conn. 651, 101 Atl. 8.

Georgia. Third National Bank v. Ry., 114 Ga. 890, 40 S. E. 1016; Fulton National Bank v. Fulton County, 144 Ga. 691, 87 S. E. 1023; Fourth National Bank v. Odbm, 147 Oa. 170, 93 S. E. 91.

Idaho. Green v. Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co., 30 Ida. 359, 164 Pac. 1016.

Illinois. Roberts v. Clelland, 82 111. 538; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Burch, 141 111. 510. 33 Am. St. Rep. 331, 31 N. E. 420; Ostertag v. Evans, 176 111. 215, 52 N. E. 255.

Iowa. Wing v. Page, 62 Iowa 87, 11 N. W. 639, 17 N. W. 181; Shambaugh v. Current, 111 Ia. 121, 82 N. W. 497: State Trust Co. v. Turner, 111 Ia. 664, 53 L. R. A. 136, 82 N. W. 1029; Peterson v. Ball, 121 Ia. 544, 97 N. W. 79;

Hipwell v. National Surety Co., 130 Ia. 656, 105 N. W. 318; Steltzer v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 156 Ia. 1, L. R. A. 1915E, 1017, 134 N. W. 573; Rice v. Friend Bros. Co., 179 Ia. 335, 161 N. W. 310 [reversing judgment on rehearing, Rice v. Friend Bros. Co. (Ia.), 146 N. W. 748].

Kansas. Fuller v. Horner, 69 Kan. 467, 77 Pac. 88.

Kentucky. Gossom v. Sharp, 37 Ky. (7 Dana) 140.

Maryland. National Bank v. Baltimore, etc., R. R., 99 Md. 661, 105 Am. St. Rep. 321, 59 Atl. 134.

Massachusetts. Willis v. Twambly, 13 Mass. 204; Sawyer v. Cook, 188 Mass. 163, 74 N. E. 356; Earnahaw v. Whittemore, 194 Mass. 187, 80 N. E. 520; Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Adams, 224 Mass. 442, 113 N. E. 277.

Michigan. Warner v. Whittaker, 6 Mich. 133, 72 Am. Dec. 65; Hooper v. Van Husan, 105 Mich. 592, 63 N. W. 522; Allen v. Detroit, 167 Mich. 464, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 890, 133 N. W. 317.

Missouri. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 210 Mo. 631, 109 S. W. 567.

Montana. Farrell v. Gold Flint Min. Co., 32 Mont. 416, 80 Pac. 1027.

Nebraska. Lewis v. Holdredge, 56 Neb. 379, 76 N. W. 890 [reversing on other grounds on rehearing, 55 Neb. 173, 75 N. W. 549; modified, 57 Neb. 219, 77 N. W. 6561.

New York. Callanan v. Edwards, 32 N. Y. 483; Littlefield v. Albany County Bank, 97 N. Y. 581.

North Dakota. Crane & Ordway Co. v. Sykeston School District, 36 N. D. 254, 162 N. W. 413.

Oklahoma. Jack v. National Bank, 17 Okl-a. 430, 89 Pac. 219; Pittsburg Mortgage Investment Co. v. Robins, 59 Okla. 217, 158 Pac. 929.

Oregon. Rayburn v. Hurd, 20 Or. 229, 25 Pac. 635; Columbia Realty Investment Co. v. Alameda Land Co., 87 Or. 277, 168 Pac. 64, 440.

South Carolina. Patterson v. Rabb, 38 S. Car. 138, 19 L. R. A. 831, 17 S. E. 463; Pittman v. Raysor, 49 S. Car. 469, 27 S. E. 475.

South Dakota. Dewey v. Komar, 21 S. D. 117, 110 N. W. 90.

Utah. South High School District v. McMillan Paper & Supply Co., 49 Utah 477, 164 Pac. 1041.

Washington. Paul v. Vancouver, 89 Wash. 331, 154 Pac. 453.

West Virginia. Prim v. Mcintosh, 43 W. Va. 790, 28 S. E. 742; Whan v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 81 W. Va. 338, 94 S. E. 365.

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

For the effect of sale as passing better title than the seller had, see Market Overt in the City of London, by J. G. Pease, 31 Law Quarterly Review, 270.

2 Fourth National Bank v. Odom, 147 Ga. 170, 93 S. E. 91; Bruschke v. Wright, 166 111. 183, 57 Am. St. Rep. 125, 46 N. E. 813; Pittsburg Mortgage Investment Co. v. Robins, - Okla. - 158 Pac. 929.

3Wheelock v. Hull, 124 Ia. 752, 100 N. W. 863.

Considerations of public policy may, however, give to the assignee a right which the assignee could not have enforced.11 The assignee of a public contract for which payment is to be made by assessments upon the property owners, is not bound by a contract made by the assignor for crediting one of the property owners with the payment upon his assessment.12

The debtor may, by his representations to the assignee prior to assignment, estop himself from denying the validity of the claim assigned.13 Thus where A had rendered services for B, trustee, and A assigned his claim to X, B stating that the only question as to A's fee was as to the amount to be fixed by the court, B can not afterwards claim that A's services were rendered under a contract that he should make no charge therefor.14 The debtor's promise to pay the assignee in full, if made before the assignment, may estop him from denying the validity of the claim.15

4Wheelock v. Hull, 124 Ia. 752, 100 N. W. 863.

5 United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ram-lose, 210 Mo. 631, 100 S. W. 567.

6 Partnership. Good v. Lipp, 41 Colo. 209 [sub nomine, Lipp v. Good, 91 Pac. 1104]. Foreign corporation. Dewey v. Komar, 21 S. D. 117, 110 N. W. 90.

7Rice v. Friend Bros. Co., 179 Ia. 355, 161 N. W. 310 [reversing judgment on rehearing, Rice v. Friend Bros. Co. (Ia.), 146 N. W. 748]; Crane & Ordway Co. v. Sykeston School District, 3P N. D. 254, 162 N. W. 413.

8 Egbert v. Kimberly, 146 Pa. St. 96, 23 Atl. 437.

9 Commercial National Bank v. Burch, 141 111. 519, 33 Am. St. Rep. 331, 31 N. E. 420; Nester v. Brewing Co., 161 Pa. St. 473, 41 Am. St. Rep. 894, 24 L. R. A. 247, 29 Atl. 102.

10 Bell v. Pelt, 51 Ark. 433, 14 Am. St. Rep. 57, 4 L. R. A. 247, 11 S. W. 684.

11 Stitt v. Horton, 165 Ind. 555, 76 N. E. 241.

12 Stitt v. Horton, 165 Ind. 555, 76 N. E. 241.