Acceptance of the assignment by the debtor and his assent thereto, constitute a new contract between himself and the assignee.1 On acceptance of a note payable at a bank in which the maker has funds sufficient to meet such note, the risk of the failure of the bank is on the maker under a statute making such note equivalent to a check.2

Under such new contract the rights of the assignee may be greater than those of the assignor under the original contract. Thus if an insurance company assents to an assignment, it waives a right of forfeiture which it had as against the assignor.3 If the debtor who has accepted a partial assignment pays to the assignor such an amount upon his debt that the balance due is less than the amount assigned, the debtor is liable to the assignee for the amount assigned to him.4 If the drawee of an order accepts it unconditionally, he may thereby become liable to the holder in excess of his liability to the drawer.5 If. however, the drawee accepts upon condition,6 as where he promises to pay out of a specified fund,7 or on the completion of certain work,8 he incurs no liability in excess of the terms of his acceptance.

737. 45 Pac. 218; Oppenheimer v. Bank, 20 Mont. 192, 50 Pac. 419.

Nebraska. Slobodisky v. Curtis, 58 Neb. 211, 78 N. W. 522.

New Jersey. Bank v. Bayonne, 48 N. J. Eq. 246. 21 Atl. 478.

New York. Risley v. Phenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318, 38 Am. Rep. 421; Coates v. First National Bank, 91 N. Y. 20.

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

Pennsylvania. Nesmith v Drum, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 9, 42 Am. Dec. 260.

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

2 Seattle v., Liberman, 9 Wash. 276, 37 Pac. 433.

3Sykes v. Bank, 2 S. D. 242, 49 N W. 1058.

4 Union Iron Works v. Kilgore, 65 Minn. 497, 67 N. W. 1017; Burditt v. Porter, 63 Vt. 296. 25 Am. St. Rep. 763, 21 Atl. 955.

5 Kansas City, etc., Ry. v. Robertson, 109 Ala. 296, 19 So. 432; Grain v Aldrich, 38 Cal. 514, 99 Am. Dec. 423;

Gibson v. Cooke, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 15, 32 Am. Dec. 194; James v. Newton, 142 Mass. 366, 56 Am. Rep. 692, 8 N. E. 122; Bradley v. Berns, 5l N. J. Eq. 437, 26 Atl. 908.

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

7 See Sec. 2250 et seq.

1 Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 143 U. S. 596, 36 L. ed. 277; Evans v. Stratton, 142 Ky. 615, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 393, 134 S. W. 1154; Hanover Ins. Co. v. Brown, 77 Md. 64, 39 Am. St. Rep. 386, 25 Atl. 989, 27 Atl. 314; Baldwin's Bank v. Smith, 215 N. Y. 76, L. R. A. 1918F, 1089. 109 N. E. 138.

2 Baldwin's Bank v. Smith, 215 N. Y. 76, L. R. A. 1918F, 1089, 109 N. E. 138.

3 Manchester Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 13 Ind. App. 365, 55 Am. St. Rep. 226, 40 N. E. 926, 41 N. E. 847; MedearisiV. Ins. Co., 104 Ia. 88, 65 Am. St. Rep. 428, 73 N. W. 495; Hall v. Ins. Co., 93 Mich. 184, 32 Am. St. Rep. 497, 18 L. R. A. 135, 53 N. W. 727.

If the assignor notifies the debtor of defenses to the assignment, the debtor can not treat a subsequent payment to the assignee, made without interposing such defense, as a payment on the assignor's account.9