equitable assignment

An agreement to pay out of a particular fund, however clear in its terms, is not an equitable assignment; a covenant in the most solemn form has no greater effect. The phraseology employed is not material provided the intent to transfer is manifested. Such an intent and its execution are indispensable. The assignor must not retain any control over the fund—any authority to collect, or any power of revocation. If he do, it is fatal to the claim of the assignee. The transfer must be of such a character that the fundholder can safely pay, and is compellable to do so, though forbidden by the assignor. Where the transfer is of the character described, the fund-holder is bound from the time of notice.

An assignment giving to the assignee a right enforceable only in equity. The term is now commonly applied to constructive assignments, though such are now generally enforceable a complete and present right on the person intended to be provided for, even where the circumstances do not admit of its present exercise." 14 Wall. (U. S.) 69. An order on a particular fund (120 U. S. 511; 78 Iowa, 426; 3 Me. 436), or an order by a creditor to pay the debt to a third person (7 Cal. 258; 18 Mass. 461; 18 Mont. 335), are examples of such assignments.

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.

An assignment which, though invalid at law, will be recognized and enforced in equity ; e. g., an assignment of a chose in action, or of future acquisitions of the assignor. Holmes v. Evans, 129 N. Y. 140, 29 N. E. 233; Story v. Hull, 148 111. "506, 32 N. E. 265; First Nat. Bank v. Coates (C. Ct) 8 Fed. 542. As to equitable "Assets," "Co.nstruction," "Conversion," "Defense," "Basement," "Ejectment," "Election," "Estate," "Estoppel," "Execution," "Garnishment," "Levy," "Lien," "Mortgage," "Title," and "Waste," see those titles.

Defined under Equitable in Black's Law Dictionary.

An assignment which, though invalid at law, will be recognized and enforced in equity; e. g-, an assignment of a chose in action, or of fulure acquisitions of the assignor,