Equitable Assignment

An assignment of a chose in action, a thing not in as a mortgage of personal property t<> 1" acquired in the future, and a mere contii which, though not good at law. equity will recognize.

Bisph. Eq. S 164; 10 H. L. Caa 209; Butt v. Ellett 19 Wall. (U. S.) 511, ^_ L. Ed. 183; Shephard v. Clark, 3.s 111. App. 00; Bacon v. Bonhain.:::: X..1. Eq. 614: East Lewisburg Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Ma: Pa. 90.

In making such an assignment, no particular form of words is necessary; Buck v. Swazey. 35 Me. 41, 56 Am. Dec. 681; Kes- 383; Bower v. Stone Co., 30 N. J. Eq. 171; but the property must be specifically pointed out; Morrill v. Noyes, 56 Me. 465, 96 Am. Dec. 4S6; Benj. Sales 62; and there must be an appropriation or separation, and the mere intent to appropriate is not sufficient; Putnam Saw Bank v. Beal, 54 Fed. 577; Shannon v. Mayor, etc., of Hoboken, 37 N. J. Eq. 123. A valid assignment may be made of a portion of the contract price of a building contracted to be erected by the assignor, but not yet erected, and such assignment need not be written nor accompanied by any transfer of the contract itself; Lanigan's Adin'r v. Bradley & Currier Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 201, 24 Atl. 505. The assignee of a chose in action takes it subject to existing equities in favor of third persons, as well as to those between the original parties; Schafer v. Reilly, 50 N. Y. 67; 3 Lead. Cas. Eq. 372, n. Equity will not recognize the assignment of certain kinds of property as against the policy of the law, such as, mere litigious rights, pensions, salaries of judges, commissions of officers in the army or navy, claims against the United States, and the like; 1 E. L. & Eq. 153; Appeal of Elwyn, 67 Pa. 369; L. R. 7 Ch. 109; 8 id.

76; Wanless v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. 123; Bates v. U. S., 4 Ct. 01. 569; St. Paul & D. R. Co. v. U. S., 112 U. S. 733, 5 Sup. Ct. 366, 28 L. Ed. 861.

The assignment of secured notes carries with it an equitable assignment of the security; Himrod v. Bolton, 44 111.

App. 516.

See Assignment; Expectancy.