A like principle applies as between the assignee and those who succeed to the title of the assignor, but who are not purchasers for value, such as receivers,1 or trustees in bankruptcy.2 It may be noted that the doctrine requiring notice to perfect the title of the assignee first arose in bankruptcy cases,3 and that under modern statutes which do not contain the same language as that of the bankrupt act of James I,4 the prior assignee in point of time pre-vails over a subsequent assignee or trustee in bankruptcy.

2 England. Hobson v. Bell, 2 Beav. 17; Burn v. Carvalho, 4 Myl. & Cr. 690; Rodick v. Gandell, 1 De 6. M & G. 763; Gorring v. Irwell, 34 Ch. D. 128; Brandt's (William) Sons & Co. v. Dun-lop Rubber Co. [1905], A. C. 454.

Maryland. Wemtz v. Wells, 130 Md. 53, 99 Atl. 956.

Massachusetts. Wakefield v. Martin, 3 Mass. 558.

Minnesota. MacDonald v. Kneeland, 5 Minn. 352; Quigley v. Welter, 95 Minn. 383, 104 N. W. 236.

North Carolina. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. McNair, 139 N. Car. 326, 51 S. E. 949.

1 Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Coyle, 139 Fed. 792; Allyn v. Allyn, 154 Mass. 570, 28 N. E. 779; Board of Education v. Duparquet, 50 N. J. Eq. 234, 24 Atl. 922.

2 Alabama. Vann v. Marbury, 100 Ala. 438, 46 Am. St. Rep. 70, 23 L. R. A. 325, 14 So. 273.

Connecticut. City Bank v. Thorp, 78 Conn. 211, 61 Atl. 428.

Louisiana. Johnson v. Boice, 40 La. Ann. 273, 8 Am. St. Rep. 528, 4 So. 163.

Maine. Woods v. Ronco, 85 Me. 124, 26 Atl. 1056.

Minnesota. Nielsen v. Albert Lea, 91 Minn. 392, 98 N. W. 195, 197.

Nebraska. Consterdine v. Moore, 65 . Neb. 291, 101 Am. St. Rep. 620, 96 N. W. 1021.

Nevada. Washoe County Bank v. Campbell, 41 Nev. 153, 167 Pac. 643.

Oklahoma. Pittsburg Mortgage Investment Co. v. Robins, - Okla. - , 158 Pac. 929.

Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Sides, 176 Pa. St. 616, 35 Atl. 136.

South Carolina. Harvin v. Galluchat, 28 S. Car. 211, 13 Am. St. Rep. 671, 5 S. E. 359; Willoughby v. Florence, 51 S. Car. 462, 29 S. E. 242.

3 Bush v. Prescott & N. W. R. Co., 76 Ark. 497, 89 S. W. 86.

4 Nance v. Polk, 116 Ark. 588 [memorandum opinion], 171 S. W. 1195.

Notice to the debtor is not necessary as against the creditors of the assignor.5 An assignment under a construction contract is valid as against subcontractors or materialmen who have not obtained liens,6 even if the amount which is assigned is part of the fund retained by the debtor to protect him against claims of materialmen, laborers, and the like.7

If the second assignee does not pay value, the first assignee in point of time has priority, although he has not given notice until after the second assignee.8 If the first assignment is inoperative because it is not in writing,9 the first assignee can not claim priority as against a subsequent assignee on the ground that the subsequent assignee has not furnished any additional consideration, but has taken such assignment for a pre-existing debt.10

1 Arden v. Arden, 29 Ch. Div. 703; In re Bristow [1906], 2 I. R. 215; Cogan v. Conover Mfg Co., 69 N. J. Eq. 809, 115 Am. St. Rep. 629, 64 Atl. 973.

2 In re Wallis [1902], 1 K. B. 719; Greey v. Dockendorff, 231 U. S. 513, 58 L. ed. 339; In re Cincinnati Iron Store Co., 167 Fed. 486, 93 C. C. A. 122; In re Hawley Down-Draft Furnace Co., 238 Fed. 122, 151 C C. A. 198; Jennings v. Whitney, 224 Mass. 138, 112 N. E. 655.

3Ryall v. Howies, 1 Ves. Sr. 348, 9 Bligh (N.S.) 377 [ sub nomine, Ryall v. Rolle, 1 Atk. 165].

See Sec. 2275.

4 For the bankrupt act of James I, see Sec. 2275, note 2.

"The rule of the English statutes as to reputed owners may extend to debts growing due to the bankrupt in the course of his business but we have no such statute." Greey v. Dockendorff, 231 U. S. 513, 58 L. ed. 339.

5 Greey v. Dockendorff, 231 U. 8. 513, 58 L. ed. 339; Williams v. Inger-soll, 89 N. Y. 508.

6 United States Fidelity & G. Co. v. Newark, 79 N. J. Eq. 584, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 575, 81 Atl. 758 [citing and fol lowing Grassmann v. Bonn, 30 N. J. Eq. 490; Shannon v. Hoboken, 37 N. J. Eq. 123 (affirmed, Shannon v. Hoboken, 37 N. J. Eq. 318), and Essex County v. Lindley, 41 N. J. Eq. 189, 3 Atl. 391]; National Surety Co. v. American Savings Bank & Trust Co., 101 Wash. 213, 172 Pac. 264.

7 United States Fidelity & G. Co. v. Newark, 79 N. J. Eq. 584, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 575, 81 Atl. 758.

8 Justice v. Wynne, 12 Ir. Ch. 289.

9 See Sec. 2291 and 2292.

10 American Exch. National Bank v. Federal National Bank, 226 Pa. St. 483, 27 L. R. A. (N.S.) 666, 75 Atl. 683.