The assignment of bills of exchange and promissory notes by general or special en dorsement constitutes an exception to the law of transfer of choses in action. When negotiable (i. e., made payable to order), they are transferable by the statute of 3 & 4 Anne; they may then be transferred by en dorsement; the holder can sue in his own name, and the equitable4fences which might have existed between promisor and the original promisee are cut out ; Bump v. Van Orsdale, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 637, 639; An drews v. Carr, 26 Miss. 577; Neyfong v. Wells, Hard. (Ky.) 562 ; where' a payee en dorses a note to third party adding a guar anty of payment, the contract and guaranty are assignable; Harbord v. Cooper, 43 Minn. 466, 45 N. W. 860. The assignee of a bill of lading has only such rights as the consignee would have had; Haas v. R. Co., 81 Ga. 792, 7 S. E. 629.
An assignee stands in the place of his as signor and takes simply his assignor's rights ; Taliaferro v. Bank, 71 Md. 200, 17 Atl. 1036.
The most extensive class of assignments are the general assignments in trust made by insolvent and other debtors for the pay ment of their debts. These are usually reg ulated by state statutes.
The right of an insolvent debtor to make an assignment for the benefit of his credi tors exists at common law, and when good in the state where executed is good in every state ; Weider v. Maddox, 66 Tex. 372, 1 S. W. 168, 59 Am. Rep. 617. Where the assign ment is valid under the laws of one state it will pass a debt to the assignor due under contract made there with a citizen of another state, though the assignment is void in such other state; O'Neill v. Nagle, 19 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 399.
Voluntary or common law assignments of property in other states will be respected ex cept so far as they come into conflict with the rights of local creditors or with the laws or public policy of the state in which the as signment is sought to be enforced; Barnett v. Kinney, 147 U. S. 476, 13 Sup. Ct. 403, 37 L. Ed. 247. With respect to statutory as signments, the prevailing doctrine is that a conveyance under a state insolvent law op erates only upon property within that state and that with respect to property in other states it is given only such effect as the law of such other state would permit; and that in general it must give way to the claims of creditors pursuing their remedies there. It passes no title to real estate in another state. Nor as to personal property will the title ac quired by it prevail against the garnishment of a debt due by the resident of another state or the seizure of tangible property therein under the laws of the state where the property is; Barth v. Backus, 140 N. Y.
240, 35 N. E. 425, 23 L. R. A. 47, 37 Am. St. Rep. 545 ; Rhawn v. Pearce, 110 111. 350, 51 Am. Rep. 691; Catlin v. Silver-Plate Co., 123 Ind. 477, 24 N. E. 250, 8 L. R. A. 62, 18 Am. St. Rep. 338; Security Trust Co. v. Dodd, 173 U. S. 624, 19 Sup. Ct. 545, 43 L. Ed. 845 ; King v. Cross, 175 U. S. 396, 20 Sup. Ct. 131, 44 L. Ed. 211.
A debtor making an assignment for cred itors may legally choose his own trustee, and the title passes out of him to them; Nichols v. McEwen, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 65; Wilt v. Franklin, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 514, 2 Am. Dec. 474; Hannah v. Carrington, 18 Ark. 85 ; Hemp stead v. Johnston, 18 Ark. 123, 65 Am. Dec. 458; Vansands v. Miller, 24 Conn. 180. The assent of creditors will ordinarily be pre sumed; Ashley's Adm'r v. Robinson, 29 Ala. 112, 65 Am. Dec. 387 ; Eager v. Cora., 4 Mass. 183 ; Sebor v. Armstrong, 4 Mass. 206; De Forest v. Bacon, 2 Conn. 633; North v. Tur ner, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 244; Copeland v. Wild, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 411.
In some states the statutes provide that the assignment shall be for the benefit of all creditors equally, in others preferences are legal. Independently of bankrupt and insol vent laws, or laws forbidding preferences, priorities and preferences in favor of partic ular creditors are allowed. Such preference is not considered inequitable, nor is a stipu lation that the creditors taking under it shall release the debtor from all further claims ; Sebor v. Armstrong, 4 Mass. 206; Doe v. Scribner, 41 Me. 277 ; Nutter v. Harris, 9 Ind. 88; Pearpoint v. Graham, 4 Wash.. C. C. 232, Fed. Cas. No. 10,877; Cameron v. Mont gomery, 13 S. & R. (Pa.). 132; Frazier v. Fredericks, 24 N. J. L. 162 ; Billings v. Bill ings, 2 Cal. 107, 56 Am. Dec. 319 ; Cooper v. McClun, 16 Ill. 435; Miller v. Conklin, 17 Ga.
430, 63 Am. Dec. 248; U. S. v. Lenox, 2 Paine, 180, Fed. Cas. No. 15,592; Murray v. Riggs, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 571; Union Bank of Maryland v. Kerr, 7 Md. 88; American Exchange Bank v. Inloes, id. 381; Hatton's Adm'rs v. Jordan, 29 Ala. 266 ; Haven v. Richardson, 5 N. H. 113; Brooks v. Marbury, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 78, 6 L. Ed. 423 ; Savings Bank of New Haven v. Bates, 8 Conn. 505; Hicks v. Harris, 26 Miss. 423; Bellamy v. Sheriff, 6 Fla. 62; Nightingale V. Harris, 6 R. I. 328; Lake Shore Banking Co. v. Fuller, 110 Pa. 156, 1 Atl. 731 ; Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670, 10 Sup. Ct. 354, 33 L. Ed. 696; Nordlinger v. Anderson, 123 N. Y. 544, 25 N. E. 992 ; Van Wyck v. Read, 43 Fed. 716. See