In the absence of statute no special form of assignment is necessary.1

While it has been said that "it is uniformly holden that an assignment of an instrument under seal must be by deed - in other words, that the instrument of transfer must be of as high a nature as the instrument transferred,"2 this rule is, at most, limited to assignments at law,3 and in equity sealed instruments may be assigned by parol.4 The tendency to relax requirements of mere form, and to protect assignments, at least if given upon valuable consideration,8 has resulted in the general rule that a sealed contract may be assigned without a sealed assignment.6

22 Venturi v. Silvio, 197 Ala. 607, 73 So. 45; Hove v. Stanhope State Bank, 138 Ia. 39, 115 N. W. 476.

23 Venturi v. Silvio, 197 Ala. 607, 73 So. 45.

24 Central National Bank v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 54, 26 L. ed. 693; Hove v. Stanhope State Bank, 138 la. 39, 115 N. W. 476.

25 Hove v. Stanhope State Bank, 138 la. 39, 115 N. W. 476.

26 Savior v. Bushong, 100 Pa. St. 23, 45 Am. Rep. 353.

1 Alabama.. Venturi v. Silvio, 197 Ala. 607, 73 So. 45.

Colorado. Galbraith v. Wallrich, 45 Colo. 537, 102 Pac. 1085.

Iowa. Jewett Lumber Co. v. Anderson Coal Co., 181 Ia. 950, 165 N. W. 211.

Kentucky. Poage Milling Co. v. Economy Fuel Co. (Ky.), 128 S. W. 311.

Maine. Hayes v. Rich, 101 Me. 314, 115 Am. St. Rep. 314, 64 Atl. 669.

Montana. Flinner v. McVay, 37 Mont. 306, 96 Pac. 340.

Oregon. Levins v. Stark, 57 Or. 189, 110 Pac. 980.

Texas. Scott v. Farmers' A Merchants' National Bank, 97 Tex. 31, 104 Am. St. Rep. 835, 75 S. W. 7.

2 Wood v. Partridge, 11 Mass. 488 (obiter, as it was held that notice of the assignment was not given in such form as to enable the debtor to protect himself against trustee process). Speer v. Post, 3 N. J. L. 585 (endorsement and delivery of sealed bill held insufficient as an assignment).

3Dennis v. Twitchell, 51 Mass. (10 Met.) 180.

4 Dennis v. Twitchell, 51 Mass. (10 Met.) 180.

A logical application of the rule that an assignment must be of as high a nature as the right to be assigned, would have led to the result that a judgment could not be assigned at all, except possibly by acknowledging the assignment in open court. The general relaxation of the rule that an assignment must be of as high a nature as the right to be assigned, has led to the result that a judgment may be assigned by a writing which is not under seal,7 such as a writing endorsed upon the writ of execution.8 The delivery of the execution has been held to amount to an assignment of a judgment, if such was the agreement between the parties.9

Since no particular form of assignment is necessary, a contract may be assigned without a deed, even if it is for the sale of an interest in realty.10

Rights under a non-negotiable contract may be assigned by a written instrument separate from the contract assigned,11 without delivery of the evidence of the right which is assigned;12 or by an indorsement on the contract assigned;13 or by an oral contract of assignment,14 even if the contract to be assigned is in writing.15 Accordingly, an oral assignment is not invalidated either because it is evidenced by a written instrument executed at a later date,16 or because such written assignment, intended to be executed subsequently, is never in fact executed.17

5 Vose v. Handry, 2 Greenleaf (Me.) 322 (a bond may be assigned by delivery but not a mortgage).

6 England. Fenner v. Mears, 2 W. Bl. 1269.

Illinois. Barrett v. Hinckley, 124 111. 32, 7 Am. St. Rep. 331, 14 N. E. 863.

Iowa. Hoffman v. Smith, 04 la. 495, 63 N. W. 182.

Massachusetts. Dunn v. Snell, 15 Mass. 481.

New Jersey. Allen v. Pancoast, 20 N. J. L. 68.

New York. Prescott v. Hull, 17 Johns. 284.

7 Schmidt v. Shaver, 196 111. 108, 89 Am. St. Rep. 250, 63 N. E. 655 (assignment apparently not under seal, but invalid for want of authority of agent); Hayes v. Rich, 101 Me. 314, 115 Am. St. Rep. 314, 64 Atl. 659.

8 Brown v. Maine Bank, 11 Mass. 153.

9Dunn v. Snell, 15 Mass. 481.

10 Pruhauf v. Bendheim, 127 N. Y. 587, 28 N. E. 417; Sayre v. Mohney, 30 Or. 238, 47 Pac. 197.

11 United States. Spring v. Ins. Co., 21 U. S. (8 Wheat.) 268, 5 L. ed. 614.

Illinois. Barrett v. Hinckley, 124 11l. 32, 7 Am. St. Rep. 331, 14 N. E. 863.

Michigan. In re Smith, 191 Mich. 694, 158 N. W. 148.

North Dakota. Erickson v. Kelly, 9 N. D. 12, 81 N. W. 77.

Ohio. Leonard v. Kebler, 50 O. S. 444, 34 N. E. 659.

Pennsylvania. Bond v. Bunting, 78 Pa. St. 210.

Virginia. Rinehart & Dennis Co. v. McArthur, 123 Va. 556, 96 S. E. 829 (sufficient as an equitable assignment).

12 In re Smith, 191 Mich. 694, 158 N. W. 148.

13 Williamson v. Yager, 91 Ky. 282, 34 Am. St. Rep. 184, 15 S. W. 660; Brown v. Bank, 11 Mass. 153; Kulp v. March, 181 Pa. St. 627, 59 Am. St. Rep. 687, 37 Atl. 913.

14 Alabama. Venturi v. Silvio, 197 Ala. 607. 73 So. 45.

Georgia. Yates v. Bank, 148 Ga. 240, 96 S. E. 427.

Iowa. Jewett Lumber Co, v. Anderson Coal Co., 181 la. 950, 166 N. W. 211; State Centra] Savings Bank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., - Ia. - , 168 N. W. 201.

Maine. Lord v. Downs, 112 Me. 396, 92 Atl. 327 (sufficient as an equitable assignment).

Montana. Flinner v. McVay, 37 Mont. 306, 96 Pac. 340 (obiter, as other conditions were not performed); National Bank v. Ingle, 53 Mont. 414, 164 Pac. 535.

North Dakota. McLennan v. Plum-mer, 34 N. D. 269, 158 N. W. 269.

An oral assignment of a book account is held to be sufficient. Moore v. Lowery, 25 Ia. 336, 95 Am. Dec. 790; Wilt v. Huffman, 46 W. va 473, 33 S. . 279; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262.

Delivery of the account book is sufficient. Clark v. Wiss, 34 Kan. 553, 9 Pac. 281.

A delivery of a copy of the account has been held to be sufficient. Porter v. Bullard, 26 Me. 448.