This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
The notice of assignment given to the debtor must be such as to apprise him of the fact of assignment.1 Apart from this, no special form is necessary.2 If the notice is sufficiently clear, it is not necessary that the assignment be shown to the debtor.3 If, however, the notice is vague and uncertain,4 or if it is in a language unknown to the debtor, and it is taken away by the assignee who tells the debtor that it is a note which the assignee wishes the debtor to sign,5 it is not sufficient. Mere failure to give the month and date of an order by a depositor on a savings bank does not invalidate the notice.6 Mere knowledge that the attorney of the adversary party is to receive a certain per cent, of the recovery is not notice that the transaction amounts to an assignment.7
Pinning a notice of assignment to a written claim against a municipal corporation is sufficient as service, even though such notice becomes unpinned later, after the municipal corporation has received it.8
Under a statute providing that if an assignment is written and filed it shall operate as constructive notice, actual notice to the debtor is sufficient as between the assignee and the debtor, though the statutory notice is not given.9 A similar statutory provision when read in connection with the entire statute, has been held to apply only to assignments made by a building contractor, which would prejudice the rights of materialmen, subcontractors, and the like,10 and it has been held not to apply to a contest between an assignee of a building contractor and one who has obtained judgment against such building contractor for personal injuries and who seeks to reach the amount due under the building contract by proceedings in aid of execution.11
1 Bunnell v. Bronson, 78 Conn. 679, 63 Atl. 396; Mueller v. University, 195 111. 236, 88 Am. St. Rep. 194, 63 N. E. 110; Dale v. Kimpton, 46 Vt. 76.
2 Brandt v. Dunlop Rubber Co. , A. C. 454, 74 L. J. K. B. 898 [reversing Brandt v. Dunlop Rubber Co. , 1 K. B. 387; Bunnell v. Bronson, 78 Conn. 679, 63 Atl. 396; Sintes v. Commerford, 112 La. 706, 36 So. 656.
3 North Penn. Iron Co. v. International Lithoid Co., 217 Pa. St. 538 66 Atl. 860.
4 Mueller v. University, 195 111. 236, 88 Am. St. Rep. 194, 63 N. E. 110.
5 Crouch v. Muller. 141 N. Y. 495, 36 N. E 304
6 Weld v. Bank, 158 Mass. 339, 33 N. E. 519.
7 Rose v. Pretz, 109 Fed. 810.
8 Brooks v. Hinton State Bank, 26 Okla. 56, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 807, 110 Pac. 46.
9 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Joslin, 74 Ark. 551, 86 S. W. 435; Galveston, etc., Ry. v. Ginther, 96 Tex. 295, 72 S. W. 166.
10 Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. People's National Bank, 221 N. Y. 1, L. R. A. 1917F, 1123, 116 N. E. 369.
11 Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. People's National Bank, 221 N. Y. 1, L. R. A. 1917F, 1123, 116 N. E. 369.