If an assignment is executed and passes legal title, then as between the assignor and the assignee no consideration is necessary. Such assignment is valid even though gratuitous.1 If the assignment is executed and passes full title to the assignee, the debtor can not object that the assignment was without consideration,2 or that it was given for a preexisting debt,3 or for due-bills of the assignee,4 or is otherwise invalid.5 Creditors of the debtor can not object to his payment of such account as fraudulent.6 Lack of consideration may tend to show, however, that the assignor retains the claim and that the assignee is not the real party in interest.7 The fact that the consideration appears upon the assignment to be a small sum and "other sufficient and valuable consideration," is not sufficient to show that the assignment did not transfer the interest to the assignee.8 A gratuitous assignment is inoperative if made by one who acts in a representative capacity, and who is not assigning his own interest.9

8 Berlin Iron Bridge Co. v. Connecticut River Banking Co., 76 Conn. 477, 57 Atl. 275.

9 Abbott v. Davidson, 18 R. I. 91, 25 Atl. 830.

10 In re Floyd, 225 Fed. 262; McDonald v. Bank, 111 Mich. 649, 70 N. W. 143.

11 Foster v. Sutlive, 110 Ga. 297, 34 S. E. 1037; Ovett Land & Lumber Co. v. Wimberly, 109 Miss. 601, 68 So. 855; American Exchange National Bank v. Federal National Bank, 226 Pa. St. 483, 27 L. R. A. (N.S.) 666, 75 Atl. 683.

12 Porte v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 162 Wis. 446, 156 N. W. 469.

13 Rennie v. Block, 26 Can. S. C. 356. 14Chytraus v. Smith, 141 111. 231, 30

N. E. 450.

15 Gardner v. R. R., 102 Ala. 635, 48 Am. St. Rep. 84, 15 So. 271.

1 Hambleton v. Brown [1917], 2 K. B. 93; Burkett v. Doty, 176 Cal. 89, 167 Pac. 518; Rutan v. Huck, 30 Utah 217, 83 Pac. 833.

Bank-book in savings bank. Hallo-well Savings Institution v. Titcomb, 96 Me. 62, 51 Atl. 249;. Whalen v. Mil-holland, 89 Md. 199, 44 L. R. A. 208, 43 Atl. 45; Dunn v. Houghton (N. J. Eq.), 51 Atl. 71; Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572,21 Am. St. Rep. 758, 11 L. R. A. 684, 26 N. E. 627; Polley v. Hicks, 58 O. S. 218, 41 L. R. A. 858, 50 N. E. 809.

Certificate of deposit. Telford v. Patton, 144 111. 611, 33 N. E. 1119; Cowen v. Bank, 94 Tex. 551, 63 S. W. 532, 64 S. W. 778.

Insurance policy. Hani v. Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 276, 47 Atl. 200; Lord v. Ins. Co., 95 Tex. 216, 66 S. W. 290.

Account. Yates v. Bank, 148 Ga. 246, 96 S. E. 427; Wallace v. Leroy, 57 W. Va. 263, 110 Am. St. Rep. 777, 50 S. E. 243.

For the necessity of a written assignment in case of a gratuitous transfer of an oral chose in action, see Adams v. Merced Stone Co., 176 Cal. 415, 3 A. L. R. 928. 178 Pac. 498.

As between two successive assignees of the same fund, the prior must show that he took for value if he is to prevail against a subsequent bona fide assignee for value.10

If the assignment is executory and operative only in equity, it is said to be a contract to be enforced in equity by treating the equitable interest as passing thereunder. Such a contract, like any other, requires consideration.11 Where a consideration is regarded as necessary to the validity of an assignment, a written assignment is prima facie upon consideration, if a consideration is presumed in case of written instruments.12 An antecedent indebtedness is sufficient consideration for an assignment.13

See, Gifts of Choses in Action, by Oliver S. Rundell, 27 Yale Law Journal, 643; Consideration and the Assignment of Choses in Action, by Edward Jenks, 16 Law Quarterly Review, 241, and Gifts Inter Vivos of Choses in Action, by Geo. P. Costigan, 27 Law Quarterly Review, 326.

2 Kentucky. Jones v. Moore, 102 Ky. 591, 44 S. W. 126.

Louisiana. Bonner v. Beard, 43 La. Ann. 1036, 10 So. 373.

Massachusetts. Phipps v. Bacon, 183 Mass. 5, 66 N. E. 414.

Michigan. Coe v. Hinkley, 109 Mich. 608, 67 N. W. 915; Hicks v. Stool, 126 Mich. 408, 85 N. W. 1121.

Nebraska. Barnett v. Ellis, 34 Neb. 539. 52 N. W. 368.

Utah. Rutan v. Huck, 30 Utah 217. 83 Pac. 833.

West Virginia. Wallace v. Leroy, 57 W. Va. 263, 110 Am. St. Rep. 777, 50 S. E. 243.

3Shaford v. Bank. 125 Mich. 431, 84

N. W. 624; Rinehart & Dennis Co. v. McArthur, 123 Va. 556, 96 S. E. 829; Rowland v. Barre Savings Bank & Trust Co., 89 Vt. 290, 95 Atl. 679.

4Glendale Fruit Co. v. Hirst, 6 Ariz. 428, 59 Pac. 103.

5 Cornish, etc., Co. v. Marty, 76 Minn. 493, 79 N. W. 507.

6 Yates v. Bank, 148 Ga. 246, 96 S. E. 427.

7 Muller v. Witte, 78 Conn. 495, 62 Atl. 756.

8 Jahn v. Champagne Lumber Co., 147 Fed. 631.

9 Flynn v. Chicago Great Western R. R., 159 la. 571, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1098, 141 N. W. 401.

10 The Elmbank, 72 Fed. 610.

11 Edwards v. Daley, 14 La. Ann. 384; Tallman v. Hoey, 89 N. Y. 537. "Assignment of choses in action have been said to be executory contracts, which are not to be enforced without consideration." Lonsdale's Estate, 29 Pa. St. 407. 410.

An assignment may be effected by an instrument under seal without regard to the existence of a valuable consideration.14