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.
On the other hand, a transaction whereby one party transfers to another ownership and control of a chose in action, amounts to an assignment.1 v. Wyandotte Construction Co., - Mo. - , 201 S. W. 554; Hanna v. Florence Iron Co., 222 N. Y. 290, 118 N. E. 629.
9 Reed v. R. M. Chapman Basting Co., 137 Minn. 442, 163 N. W. 794; Spencer v. Wyandotte Construction Co., - Mo. - , 201 S. W. 554; Hanna v. Florence Iron Co., 222 N. Y. 290; 118 N. E. 629.
10 Wakefield v. ParkhurKt, 84 Or. 483, 165 Pac. 578.
11Kellas v. Slack & Slack Co., 129 Md. 535, 99 Atl. 677.
12 Erie Brewing Co. v. Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co., 81 O. S. 1, 89 N. E. 1065.
13Beran v. Bank, 137 N. Y. 450, 33 N. E. 593.
14 Nichols v. Orr, - Colo. - , 2 A. L. R. 449, 106 Pac. 561; Hargett v. McCad-den, 107 Ga. 773, 33 S. E. 666; Story v. Hull, 143 111. 506, 32 N. E. 265; Tone v. Shankland, 110 la. 525, 81 N. W. 789; Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 9l, 54 Pac. 413.
15 Holmes v. Evans, 129 N. Y. 140, 29 N. E. 233, Cullers v. May, 81 Tex. 110, 16 S. W. 813.
16Cushing v. Chapman, 115 Fed. 237.
17 Lane v. Magdebury, 81 Wis. 344, 51 N. W. 562.
1 England. Alexander v. Steinhard fl903], 2 K. B. 208.
United States. Clark v. Iron Co., 81 Fed. 310.
An agreement by a mortgagor who is effecting a new loan to take up a pre-existing mortgage that the subsequent mortgagee shall pay the proceeds directly to the first mortgagee, operates as an assignment.2 So an agreement between the next of kin that the administrator should make an equal division of the proceeds of a benefit certificate, made before it was known who was the beneficiary, operates as an assignment.3 An arrangement between a mortgagor, his agent and a mortgagee, whereby the mortgagor instructs the agent to pay the rents of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, and the agent opens an account, charging himself in favor of the mortgagee for the rent when collected, amounts to an assignment.4
To effect an assignment of a fund, the fund must be described with sufficient certainty.5 A valid partial assignment in equity must indicate the portion of the fund assigned.6 An order addressed to a debtor, ordering payment out of the amount due from him to the drawer, is sufficient where there is but one fund thus owing.7 An order on a village to pay and "charge the same to our account," on a specified street, is sufficient where given by contractors who are to be paid only out of special assessments.8
California. Binford v. Boyd, - Cal. - -, 174 Pac. 66.
Illinois. Carlyle v. Carlyle, etc., Co., 140 111. 445, 20 N. E. 556.
Kentucky. Lafferty v. Hall (Ky.), 44 S. W. 426.
Massachusetts. Kingsbury v. Bur-rill, 151 Mass. 199, 24 N; E. 36; O'Con-nell v. Worcester, 225 Mass. 159, 114 N. E. 201.
Minnesota. Second National Bank of Grand Forks v. Sproat, 55 Minn. 14, 66 N. W. 254; Hurley v. Bendel, 67 Minn. 41, 69 N. W. 477.
Montana. National Bank v. Ingle, 53 Mont. 414, 164 Pac. 535.
New Hampshire. Marsh v. Garney, 69 N. H. 236, 45 Atl. 745.
Pennsylvania. Spott's Estate, 156 Pa. St. 281, 27 Atl. 132.
Rhode Island. Supreme Assembly, etc., Good Fellows v. Campbell, 17 R. T. 402, 13 L. R. A. 601, 22 Atl. 307.
Wisconsin. Baillie v. Stephenson, 95 Wis. 500, 70 N. W. 660.
2 Leonard v. Marshall, 82 Fed. 396.
3 Supreme Assembly, etc., Good Fellows v. Campbell, 17 R. I. 402, 13 L. R. A. 601, 22 Atl. 307.
4 Baillie v. Stephenson, 95 Wis. 500, 70 N. W. 660. But in In re Cleary, 9 Wash. 605, 38 Pac. 79, a similar transaction was held not to amount to an assignment of uncollected rents.
5Percival v. Dunn, 29 Ch. D. 128; Windsor Cement Co. v. Thompson, 86 Conn. 511, 86 Atl. 1; National Surety Co. v. American Savings Bank & Trust Co., 101 Wash. 213, 172 Pac. 264.
6 Story v. Hull, 143 111. 506, 32 N. E. 265.
7 Bank v. Gibson, 21 Ont. 613; In re Hanna, 105 Fed. 587; Harris County v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 22, 2 Am. St. Rep. 467, 3 S. W. 243.
8Dolese v. McDougall, 182 111 486, 5.1 N. E. 547.
An erroneous description of a contract,9 as where the date of the contract is stated erroneously,10 does not render the assignment invalid if there is only one transaction to which the assignment could refer. An assignment of a contractor's interest in assessments on specified lots stated to be owned by a specified person, is sufficient, though the assessment is made as against an unknown owner.11 A written promise to pay a given person, addressed the city treasurer, is a sufficient assignment of the amount due the promisor.12 An order for a certain sum is sufficient as an assignment where only one claim is due from the debtor, the amount of which is substantially that named in the assignment.13