An order by a creditor to a debtor to pay to a designated third person a specified fund which such debtor owes to such creditor, operates as an assignment of such fund if it purports to transfer ownership and control thereof to such third person; and it operates as such assignment according to the weight of authority whether the debtor accepts such order or not.1 If the order is accepted by the debtor and he agrees to pay the amount of the debt to the person indicated in such order, the order and the acceptance thereof, when taken together, operate as an assignment.2 If the order does not purport to transfer the ownership or control of the fund to the person indicated therein, but is merely an authority to the debtor to discharge his debt to the creditor by making such payment, such instrument is not an assignment until the debtor has made such payment.3 Accordingly, such authority may be revoked,4 and the creditor who is given such order may upon revocation thereof, recover from the original debtor the amount which the original debtor has not paid to the third person who is indicated in the order.5

9 Binford v. Boyd, - Cal. - , 174 Pac. 56.

10 Binford v. Boyd, - Cal. - , 174 Pac. 56.

11 Gill v. Dunham (Cal.), 34 Par. 6S.

12 Harlow v. Bartlett, 06 Me. 204, 52 Atl. 638.

13Jenness v. Wharff, 87 Me. 307, 32 Atl. 908.

1 Canada. Bank v. Gibson, 21 Ont. 613.

United States. United States v. Ferguson. 78 Fed. 103; In re Hanna, 105 Fed. 5S7; Third National Bank v. Atlantic City, 130 Fed. 751, 65 C. C. A. 177.

California. Joyce v. Wing Yet Lung, 87 Oil. 424, 25 Par. 545.

Colorado. Central Nat. Bank v Spratlen, 7 Colo. App. 430, 43 Pac. 1048.

Delaware. New Castle County National Bank v. Taylor, 8 Del. Ch. 456. 68 Atl. 387.

Georgia. Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga.

814, 38 S. E. 105; Western & A. Ry. Co. v. Union Inv. Co., 128 Ga. 74, 57 S. E. 100 (an equitable assignment).

Iowa. Metcalf v. Kincaid, 87 la. 443, 43 Am. St. Rep. 391, 54 N. W. 867.

Kentucky. Lutter v. Grosse, - Ky. 82 S.W. 278, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 585.'

Maine. Jenness v. Wharff, 87 Me* 307, 32 Atl. 908; Harlow v. Bartlett, 96 Me. 294, 52 Atl. 638.

Massachusetts. O'Connell v. Worcester, 225 Mass. 159, 114 N. E. 201.

Minnesota. Griggs v. St. Paul, 56 Minn. 150, 57 N. W. 461: Union Iron Works v. Kilgore, 65 Minn. 497, 67 N. W. 1017; Hurley v. Bendel, 67 Minn. 41, 69 N. W. 477.

Montana. Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Barnes, 18 Mont. 335 56 Am. St. Rep. 586, 47 L. R. A. 737, 45 Pac. 218; Harmon v. Conrow, 19 Mont. 104, 47 Pac. 640.

New York. Weniger v. Fourteenth Street Store, 191 N. Y. 423, 84 N. E. 394.

To effect an assignment, however, the order must indicate a specific fund. An order drawn generally, not indicating any specific fund to be paid to the holder thereof, is not an assignment by the weight of authority.6 So an order to a city official to deliver warrants to a specified company is not an assignment of the fund against which such warrants are drawn.7 Accordingly, a debt due from the drawee to the drawer may be attached before acceptance, and the attachments will have priority over the order.8 But subsequent verbal agreement of the parties may specify the fund, though not specified in the order, and thus constitute an assignment.9

Ohio. Bobbins v. Klein, 60 O. S. 190, 54 N. E. 94.

Oklahoma. Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 91, 54 Pac. 413.

Oregon. McDaniel v. Maxwell, 21 Or. 202, 28 Am. St. Rep. 740, 27 Pac. 952; Willard v. Bullen, 41 Or. 25, 67 Pac. 924; Morris v. Leach, 82 Or. 509, 162 Pac. 253; Wakefield v. Parkhurst, 84 Or. 483, 165 Pac. 578.

Tennessee. Bank v. Rhea County (Tenn. Oh. App.), 59 S. W. 442.

Virginia. Chesapeake Classified Building Association v. Coleman, 94 Va. 433, 26 S. E. 843; Rinehart & Dennis Co. v. McArthur, 123 Va. 556, 96 S. E. 829.

Washington. Dickerson v. Spokane, 26 Wash. 292, 66 Pac. 381.

Wisconsin. Dirimple v. Bank, 91 Wis. 601, 65 N. W. 501.

2 Third National Bank v. Atlantic City, 130 Fed. 751, 65 C. C. A. 177; Morris v. Leach, 82 Or. 509, 162 Pac. 253.

3 Rodick v. Gandell, 1 De G. M. & G. 763; Langdon v. Langdon, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 186; Ives v. New Bern Lumber Co., 147 N. Car. 306, 61 S. E. 70;

Day v. Charlton, - Okla. - , 160 Pac. 606.

4Tves v. New Bern Lumber Co., 147 N. Car. 306, 61 S. E. 70.

5 Ives v. New Bern Lumber Co., 147 N. Car. 306, 61 S. E. 70.

6 Canada. Thomson v. Huggins, 23 Ont. App. 101.

California. Cashman v. Harrison, 90 Cal. 297, 27 Pac. 283.

Maine. Hall v. Flanders, 83 Me. 242, 22 Atl. 158.

Massachusetts. Holbrook v. Payne, 151 Mass 383, 21 Am. St. Rep. 456, 24 N. E. 210.

New Jersey. Bradley-Currier Co. v. Bernz, 55 N. J. Eq. 10, 35 Atl. 832.

Oregon. Commercial National Bank v. Portland, 37 Or. 33, 60 Pac. 563, 54 Pac. 814.

Texas. Harris County v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 22, 2 Am. St. Rep. 467, 3 S. W. 243; Jones v. Cunningham, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 26, 15 S. W. 38.

7 Commercial National Bank v. Portland, 37 Or. 33, 60 Pac. 563, 54 Pac. 814.

An order to pay less than the entire amount of the debt is, of course, a partial assignment at best, and it can not operate as an assignment at law.10 An order to pay a certain number of dollars "of any money due or to become due," 11 or an order to pay a part of a debt due,12 have been held not to be assignments at law. According to the weight of authority, partial assignment is operative in equity if due notice is given to the debtor,13 and, accordingly, an order for a part of the fund is operative in equity if it contains the remaining elements of a valid assignment.