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.
An assignment which is affected by the voluntary act of the assignor and the assignee, is controlled by the ordinary rules of law which control other contracts.1 The general question of the capacity of the parties, the genuineness of the offer and acceptance, and the like, need not be repeated here. The questions which arise most frequently involve the intention of the parties to make an assignment and the necessity of consideration. The assent of the assignee will be presumed where the assignment was beneficial to the assignee.2 If the assignee of a contract for the sale of realty causes the title to be examined and a deed to be prepared, and requires the assignor to perfect title to a part of the premises covered by the contract, such conduct is sufficient to show acceptance on his part.3 If the assignor has delivered a written assignment to the assignee, such delivery is ordinarily conclusive as between the assignee and the debtor if the rights of third parties are not involved.4 Acceptance of an offer of assignment made by mail is said to be complete when the order of acceptance is mailed.5 Acceptance of an assignment will relate back to the original offer.6 If A gives an order to pay to C and such order operates as an assignment, it takes effect on C's acceptance from the time that it was made.7 The debtor is not protected as against the original creditor, by payments made in excess of the terms of the assignment.8 An order by A to B to pay C as C performs his contract with A, does not protect B if B pays C before C has performed such contract.9 An assignment may be subject to a condition. A deed purporting to convey an interest in a contract operates as an assignment,10 even if invalid as a deed.11 So does a mortgage if so intended.12 The destruction of a quitclaim deed which operated as an assignment of an interest in a contract for the sale of realty does not defeat the assignment unless the parties intended it as a reassignment.13 After the owner of realty has contracted with one person for its sale, his conveyance to another subject to such contract does not operate as an assignment of the contract.14
Wisconsin.. Chase v. Dodge, 111 Wis. 70, 86 N. W. 548.
2 Chase v. Dodge, 111 Wis. 70, 86 N. W. 548.
3 Citizens' Bank v. Corkings, 9 S. D. 614, 62 Am. St. Rep. 891, 70 N. W. 1059.
4Fitzroy v. Cave , 2 K. B. 364.
5 Section 191 of Remington's Code (Washington) of 1915; Olsen v. Ha-gen, 102 Wash. 321, 172 Pac. 1173; McGillivray v. Columbia Salmon Co., 104 Wash. 623, 177 Pac. 660.
6 Works v. Merrit, 105 Cal. 467, 38 Pac. 1109.
7 Weakley v. Hall, 13 Ohio, 167.
8 Connecticut. Gaffney v. Tammany, 72 Conn. 701, 46 Atl. 156; Slade v. Zeitfuss, 77 Conn. 457, 59 Atl. 406;
Muller v. Witte, 78 Conn. 495, 62 Atl. 756.
Kansas. Stewart v. Price, 64 Kan. 191, 67 Pac. 553.
Maine. Waterman v. Merrow, 94 Me. 237, 47 Atl. 157; Coombs v. Harford, 99 Me. 426, 59 Atl. 529.
Ohio. Brown v. Ginn, 66 O. S. 316, 64 N. E. 123.
Oregon. Li Sai Cheuk v. Lee Lung, 79 Or. 563, 156 Pac. 254.
Pennsylvania. Verstine v. Yeaney, 210 Pa. St. 109, 59 Atl. 689.
9 Slade v. Zeitfuss, 77 Conn. 457, 59 Atl. 406.
l0 Jahn v. Champagne Lumber Co., 147 Fed. 631.
1 O'Connell v. Worcester, 223 Mass. 159, 114 N. E. 201; Sherman v. Harris, 36 S. D. 50, 153 N. W. 925
2 Kaufman v. State Savings Bank, 151 Mich. 65, 123 Am. St. Rep. 250, 114 X. W. 863.
3 Evans v. Stratton, 142 Ky. 615, 34 L. R. A. (X.S.) 393, 134 S. W. 1154.
4Hixson Map Co. v. Nebraska Post Co. (Neb.), 98 X. W. 872.
5 Couret v. Conner, 118 Miss. 374, 79 So. 230.
6 Rinehart & Dennis Co. v. McArthur, 123 Va. 556, 96 S. E. 829.
7 Rinehart & Dennis Co. v. Mc Arthur, 123 Va. 556, 96 S. E. 829.
8 Sparks v. Jasper County, 213 Mo. 218, 112 S. W. 265.
9 Sparks v. Jasper County, 213 Mo. 218, 112 S. W. 265; O'Connell v. Worcester, 225 Mass. 159, 114 X. E. 201.
10 Brook v. Pearson, 87 Cal. 581, 25 Pac. 963. (Here the deed purported to convey one-fourth of the land contracted for and was treated as an assignment of one-fourth of the contract.)
11Marchant v. Morton [19011, 2 K. B. 829. (Since executed by one partner only, in the partnership name.)
12Dutton's Estate, 181 Pa. St. 426, 37 Atl. 582.
13 Brock v. Pearson, 87 Cal. 581, 25 Pac. 963.