After notice of an assignment the debtor is liable to the assignee.1 Subsequent payment to the assignor,2 or to subsequent attaching creditors,3 or a subsequent contract with the assignor,4 or a settlement with him,5 or release from him,6 will not protect the debtor as against the assignee. So the debtor can not set off against the assigned debt subsequent advances made by him to the assignor.7 But if the claim assigned is invalid, the debtor is not liable to the assignee for a payment made to the assignor to avoid litigation.8 However, if notice of assignment is given to a debtor after he has given his check to the assignor, he is not bound to stop the check in order to protect himself from liability to the assignee.9

1 Hellen v. Boston, 194 Mass. 570, 80 N. E. 603; Peters v. Goetz, 136 Tenn. 257, 188 S. W. 1144.

2 Illinois Central Ry. v. Bryant, 70 Miss. 665, 12 So. 592.

3 May v. Hill, 14 Mont. 338, 36 Pac. 877.

4 Holt v. Babcock, 63 Vt. 634, 22 Atl. 459 (where the notice is given to the debtor's wife and is communicated by her to him).

5 Hellen v. Boston, 194 Mass. 579, 80 N. E. 603; Peters v. Goetz, 136 Tenn. 257, 188 S. W. 1144.

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

1 England. Liquidation Estate Purchase Co. v. Willoughby (H. L.) (1898), A. C. 321.

Connecticut. City Bank v. Thorp, 79 Conn. 194, 64 Atl. 205.

Florida. Johnston v. Allen, 22 Fla. 224, 1 Am. St. Rep. 180.

Louisiana. Sintes v. Commerford, 112 La. 706, 36 So. 656.

Minnesota. Schilling v. Mullen, 55 Minn. 122, 43 Am. St. Rep. 475, 56 N. W. 586.

New York. Beardsley v. Cook, 154 N. Y. 707, 49 N. E. 126.

Pennsylvania. North Penn. Iron Co. v. International Lithoid Co., 217 Pa. St. 538, 66 Atl. 860; First National Bank v. Geske, 85 Wash. 477, 148 Pac. 593.

2 Alabama. Ivy Coal & Coke Co. v. Long, 139 Ala. 535, 36 So. 722.

Connecticut. City Bank v. Thorp, 79 Conn. 194, 64 Atl. 205.

Florida. Johnston v. Allen, 22 Fla. 224, 1 Am. St. Rep. 180.

New Jersey. Bank v. Bayonne, 48 N. J. Eq. 246, 21 Atl. 478; Herter v. Goss, etc., Co., 57 N. J. L. 42, 30 Atl. 252.

New York. Beardsley v. Cook, 154 N. Y. 707, 49 N. E. 126.

Virginia. Chesapeake Classified Building Association v. Coleman, 94 Va. 433, 26 S. E. 843.

Washington. Taggart v. Bank, 12 Wash. 538, 41 Pac. 892.

Payment to a creditor of the assignor, whose claim against the assignor the debtor has guaranteed orally, is not a defense as against the assignee. First National Bank v. Geske, 85 Wash. 477, 148 Pac. 593.

3Ruthven v. Clarke, 109 la. 25, 79 N. W. 454; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Barnes, 18 Mont. 335, 56 Am. St. Rep. 586, 47 L. R. A. 737. 45 Pac. 218.

If notice has been given properly, the first assignee may recover from the second assignee, to whom the debtor has paid the claim.10

Sec. 2284'. Effect of assignment for sole purpose of collection.

Whether an assignee who takes the legal title to the contract for the purpose of enforcing it, but who does not take the beneficial interest, and who is to account to his assignor for what he receives thereunder can be regarded as an assignee and can sue thereon in his own name, is a question on which the courts differ. Some hold that such an assignee can sue.1 This rule is based on the theory that as payment to the assignee discharges the debt, it is immaterial to the debtor what the real relation between the assignor and the assignee is.2 Another reason given therefor is that the assignee is the trustee of an express trust, and as such can sue in his own name.3 If the assignment is a legal one, it is said that the action is one to enforce a legal right resulting from a valid assignment.4 In some jurisdictions there is a specific statutory provision authorizing the assignee to sue, although the assignor retains an interest.5 The assignor can not, therefore, make a valid subsequent assignment of an account which has already been assigned for collection.6 Such an assignment has been said to make the assignor and assignee owners in common if they were to divide the proceeds of the claim.7

4 Quick v. Colchester, 30 Ont. 645.

5 McCarthy v. Water Co., 110 Cal. 687, 43 Pac. 391; A. K. Mclnnis Lumber Co. v. Rather, 111 Miss. 55, 71 So. 264; Ashby v. Winston, 34 Mo. 311.

6 Webb v. Steele, 13 N. H. 230.

7 Blakistone v. Bank, 87 Md. 302, 39 Atl. 855.

8 Beran v. Bank, 137 N. Y. 450, 33 N. E. 593.

9 Bence v. Shearman, 67 L. J. N. S. (Ch. Div.) 513.

10 Brooks v. Hinton State Bank, 26 Okla. 56, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 807, 110 Pac. 46.

1 England. Comfort v. Betts [1891],

1 Q. B. 737; Fitzroy v. Cave [1905],

2 K. B. 364.

United States. Feidler v. Bartleson, 161 Fed. 30 (under statutes of Washington).

California. Greig v. Riordan, 99 Cal. 316, 33 Pac. 913; Bauer v. State, 144 Gal. 740 78 Pac. 280.

Connecticut. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Fuller, 61 Conn. 252, 29 Am. St. Rep. 196, 23 Atl. 193.

Iowa. Kandler v. Sharp, 36 Ia. 232.

Louisiana. Wenar v. Schwartz, 120 La. 1, 44 So. 902.

Michigan. Brown v. Stoerkel, 74 Mich. 269, 3 L. R. A. 430, 41 N. W. 921.

Minnesota. Anderson v. Reardon, 46 Minn. 185, 48 N. W. 777; Jackson v. Sevatson, 79 Minn. 275, 82 N. W. 634.

New York. Allen v. Brown, 44 N. Y. 228.

Oregon. Sloan v. Woodward, 25 Or. 223, 35 Pac. 450; Falconio v. Larsen, 31 Or. 137, 37 L. R. A. 254, 48 Pac. 703.

South Dakota. Citizens' Bank v. Corkings, 9 S. D. 614, 62 Am. St. Rep. 891, 70 N. W. 1059.

Utah. Wines v. Ry., 9 Utah, 228, 33 Pac. 1042.

Washington. Olsen v. Hagan, 102 Wash. 321, 172 Pac. 1173; McGilbvray v. Columbia Salmon Co., 104 Wash. 623, 177 Pac. 660.

Other courts hold that such an assignee can not maintain an action in his own name,8 on the theory that he is not the real party in interest. He is not a "bona fide assignee" within the meaning of a statute authorizing a bona fide assignee to sue in his own name.9

The fact that the consideration is a small sum and "other sufficient and valuable consideration," does not show that the assignment is for collection or speculation.10