2 Mangles v. Dixon, 3 H. L. C. 702; 18 Eng. Law & Eq. 82.
3 Ibid. 4 Commercial Bank v. Colt, 15 Barb. 506.
5 Duncklee v. Greenfield S. Mill Co., 3 Fost. 245; Alner v. George, 1 Camp. 392. See Riley v. Taber, 9 Gray, 372.
6 Dix v. Cobb, 4 Mass. 508; Brown v. Maine Bank, 11 Mass. 153; Winch v. Keeley, 1 T. R. 619; Blake v. Buchanan, 22 Vt. 548; Webb v. Steele, 13 N. H. 230. See post, as to assignments in fraud of creditors.
§ 477. Assignments that are illegal or against public policy will be sustained neither at law nor in equity. An assignment, therefore, by an officer in the army or navy of his pay,2 or of his commission,3 or by a judge of his salary;4 or an assignment which savors of maintenance;5 or the assignment of a right of action for personal tort,6 or of a right to file a bill in equity for a fraud,7 will not be supported. Within this class are included assignments of contracts for champerty and maintenance, which are considered in a subsequent part of this treatise.8 But where a chattel has been wrongfully converted, the owner may sell it so as to give the vendee a right of action in his own name against the wrong-doer.9
§ 478. It is held that contracts for the performance of personal duties or services are unassignable by the employer.10 Where a chose in action is assigned to the government, no express promise is necessary from the original debtor to enable the government to sue in its own name.1 But where a claim, barred by the statute of limitations, is assigned to the government, it acquires no new validity thereby.2
1 Alner v. George, 1 Camp. 392.
2 Flarty v. Odium, 3 T. R. 681; Wells v. Foster, 8 M. & W. 149; Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 1 Swanst. 79; Stone v. Lidderdale, 2 Anst. 533; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1040 d to 1040 f Grenfell v. Dean and Canons of Windsor, 2 Beav. 544; MCarthy v. Goold, 1 Ball & Beat. 387.
3 Collyer v. Fallon, Turn. & Russ. 459.
4 Flarty v. Odium, 3 T. R. 681. But in Brackett v. Blake, 7 Met. 337, it is held that an assignment of a salary may be made, so as to prevent its attachment upon trustee process. See al?o Chandler v. Parker, cited in the same case, p. 337. See Waldo v. Martin, 4 B. & C. 319; Greville v. Att-kins, 9 B. & C. 462.
5 Prosser v. Edmonds, 1 Younge & Coll. 481, 496.
6 Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Peters, 193; Gardner v. Adams, 12 Wend. 297; Commonwealth v. Fuqua, 3 Litt. 41. A claim for a personal injury is not assignable before final judgment for the same. McGlinchy v. Hall, 58 Me. 152 (1870); Rice v. Stone, 1 Allen, 566; Linton v. Hurley, 104 Mass. 353 (1870).
7 Prosser v. Edmonds, 1 Younge & Coll. 481; Morrison v. Deaderick, 10 Humph. 342.
8 See post, § 578, 581.
9 Hall v. Robinson, 2 Comst. 293; Webber v. Davis, 44 Me. 147. 10 Hayes v. Willis, 4 Daly, 259 (1872).
1 Bac. Abr. Prerogative, 2, 3; The King v. Twine, Cro. Jac. 180. See also U. S. v. Buford, 3 Peters, 13.
2 United States v. Buford, 3 Peters, 13.