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.
Some statutes prescribe formalities for assigning certain kinds of contracts.1 Where such statutes are exclusive, and make other forms of assignment invalid, effect must be given to such provisions. Thus assignments of wages to be valid against third persons must, in Maine, be filed where the assignor is "commorant."2 If not so filed it is invalid as against a subsequent assignment duly filed.3 Under a similar statute, filing an assignment where the assignor resides is sufficient, though he removes to another town thereafter and it is not refiled.4 Notice to an inferior clerk of a municipal officer is not a sufficient filing.5 If two assignments of wages are filed at the same time, the debtor is not bound to pay either assignee.6 Filing an assignment has been held to be unnecessary as against one who has actual notice thereof.7 A statute which regulates the assignment of future "earnings" does not apply to an assignment of profits under a contract, since earnings is equivalent to "wages.8 A statute requiring contracts for future wages to be recorded does not apply to building contracts.9
Wash. 370, 170 Pac. 1009, to operate as an assignment).
32 Sanborn v. Maxwell, 18 D. C. App. 245; Leupold v. Weeks. 06 Md. 280, 53 Atl. 937.
33 Scott v. Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank, 97 Tex. 31, 104 Am. St. Rep. 835, 75 S. W. 7.
34 Adams v. Merced Stone Co., 176 Cal. 415, 3 A. L. R. 928, 178 Pac. 498; Hawn v. Stoler, 208 Pa. St. 610, 65 L. R. A. 813, 57 Atl. 1115.
35 Adams v. Merced Stone Co., 176 Cal. 415, 3 A. L. R. 928, 178 Pac. 498.
1 Bush v. Prescott & N. W. R. Co., 76 Ark. 497, 89 S. W. 86; Berlin Iron Bridge Co. v. Connecticut River Banking Co., 76 Conn. 477, 57 Atl. 275; Turk v. Cook, 63 Ga. 681; Flinner v. McVay, 37 Mont. 306, 96 Pac. 340.
If a contract for the sale of realty creates an equitable interest in realty, assignment of such contract must be evidenced by a writing, signed by the assignor. Flinner v. McVay, 37 Mont. 306, 96 Pac. 340. •
See Sec. 1257.
2 Whitcomb v. Waterville, 99 Me. 75, 58 Atl. 68.
Under such statute a river driver in not "commorant." Oilman v. Tnman, 85 Me. 105, 26 Atl. 1049.
3 Peabody v. Lewiston, 83 Me. 286, 22 Atl. 171.
4 Garland v. Linsky. 19 R. T. 713, 36 Atl. 837.
5 Hellen v. Boston, 194 Mass. 579, 80 N. E. 603.
6 Whitcomb v. Waterville, 99 Me. 75, 58 Atl. 68.
7 Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Joslin, 74 Ark. 551, 86 S. W. 435.
Recording and filing of assignments are not necessary unless required by statute.10
Under other statutes an assignment must be in writing.11 Under some statutes an assignment of wages is insufficient unless it is in writing and executed by the wife of the assignor.12 A statute requiring a written assignment to pass the legal title does not require a writing to cancel an assignment.13 So if the statute provides that a purchaser's certificate at judicial sale may be assigned by indorsement thereon, and legal title will thus pass, assignment on a separate paper will not pass legal title.14
If statutes which provide for assignment are cumulative merely, an assignment is valid though not in conformity thereto. Thus a judgment may be assigned by parol, though the statute provides a form therefor.15