An assignee for the benefit of creditors takes the property assigned subject to all ex !sting valid liens and equities against the assignor ; Helm v. Gilroy, 20 Or. 517, 26 Pac. 851.
The assignee of a chose in action in a court of law must bring the action in the name of the assignor; and everything which might have been shown in defence against the assignor may be used against the as signee; 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 82 ; Pollard v. In& Co., 42 Me. 221; Guerry v. Perryman, 6 Ga. 119 ; Commercial Bank of Rochester v. Colt, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 506; Sanborn v. Little, 3 N.
H. 539; Norton v. Rose, 2 Wash. (Va.) 233 Pitts v. Holmes, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 92; McJil ton v. Love, 13 Ill. 486, 54 Am. Dec. 449 Lyon v. Summers, 7 Conn. 399 ; Welch N Mandeville, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 236, 4 L. Ed '79; In re Brown's Estate, 2 Pa. 463; Ham ilton v. Greenwood, 1 Bay (S. C.) 173, 1 An Dec. 607; Matheson v. Crain, 1 McCord (F. C.) 219 ; U. S. v. Sturges, 1 Paine, 525, Fed Cas. No. 16,414 ; Patterson v. Atherton, McLean, 147, Fed. Cas. No. 10,822 ; Robin son v. Marshall, 11 Md. 251; 1 Bisph. Ec 226 ; but in many states the assignee of chose in action may sue in his own name Smith v. Ry. Co., 23 Wis. 267; Hooker i Bank, 30 N. Y. 83, 86 Am. Dec. 351; Lou v. Heinrich, 46 Mo. 603; it is no objection t suit by an assignee of an account in hi name that no consideration for the assigt ment is shown; Young v. Hudson, 99 Mo. 101 12 S. W. 632 ; and where a party assigns he interest in a suit for negligence to her al torneys by way of security, there is no rea son why suit should be carried on in he name; Rajnowski v. R. Co., 78 Mich. 681, 4 N. W. 335. In equity the assignee may su in his own name, but he can only go int equity when his remedy at law falls ; 1 Y( & C. 481; Bigelow v. Willson, 1 Pick. (Mass 485; Moseley v. Boush, 4 Rand. (Va.) 392 Haskell v. Hilton, 30 Me. 419 ; Murray 1 Lylburn, 2 JOhns. Ch. (N. Y.) 441; Spring I Ins. Co., 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 268, 5 L. Ed. Such an assignment considered as a de( laration of trust; Morrison v. Deaderick, 1 Humphr. (Tenn.) 342; 3 P. Will. 199; v. Mandeville, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 235, 4 L. Et 79; but all the equitable defences exist Rousset v. Ins. Co., 1 Binn. ak.) 429; Sprin v. Ins. Co, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 268, 5 L. Ed. 61s It has been held that the assignee of a chos in action does not take it subject to equitie of third persons of which he had no notice Himrod v. Bolton, 44 Ill. App. 516.
A valid assignment of a policy of insu; ance in the broadest legal sense, by consen of the underwriters, by statute, or other wise, vests in the assignee all the rights c the assignor, legal and equitable, includin that of action ; but the instrument, not Ix ing negotiable in its character, is assignabl only in equity, and not even so, if it has, a it sometimes has, a condition to the cot trary ; Field v. Ins. Co., 3 Md. 244; Nei
York Life Ins. Co. v. Flack, 3 Md. 341, 5 Am. Dec. 742; Kingsley v. Ins. Co., 8 Cus/ (Mass.) 393 ; Grosvenor v. Ins. Co., 17 N. 391; Simonton v. McLane's Adm'r, 25 All 353; Folsom v. Ins. Co., 30 N. H. 231; Riso v. Wilkerson, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 565 ; Pollar v. Ins. Co., 42 Me. 221; Blrdsey v. Ins. Co 26 Conn. 165; State Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 1 Roberts, 31 Pa. 438 ; 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 427 Hall v. Ins. Co., 93 Mich. 184, 53 N. W. 72 18 L. R. A. 135, 32 Am. St. Rep. 497. Wher the policy does not provide that an assign ment without the consent of the company renders it void, a parol assignment is valid ; O'Brien v. Ins. Co., 57 Hun 589, 11 N. Y. Supp. 125. Upon transfer of a policy, in case of loss, the assignee may in some states sue in his own name ; Southern Fertilizer Co. v. Reams, 105 N. C. 283, 11 S. E. 467, but this is usually when there is a statutory provi sion ; and if there be none, suit must be in the mine of the assignor ; 3 Kent 261; Rous set v. Ins. Co., 1 Binn. (Pa.) 429. In marine policies, custom seems to have established a rule different from that of the common law, and to have made policies transferable with the subject matter of insurance; May, Ins. § 377.
Assignments are peculiarly the objects of equity jurisdiction; 9 B. & C. 300 ; Mar bury v. Brooks, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 556, 5 L. Ed. 522; Nicoll v. Mumford, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 529 ; Phillips v. Prevost, id. 205 ; Howell v. Baker, id. 119 ; Hays v. Ward, id. 129, 8 Am. Dec. 554; and bona fide assignments will in most cases be upheld in equity courts ; Dav enport v. Woodbridge, 8 Green]. (Me.) 17 Corser v. Craig, 1 Wash. C. C. 424, Fed. Cas. No. 3,255 ; Kellogg v. Krauser, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 137, 16 Am. Dec. 480 ; Sheftall's Adm'rs v. Clay's Adm'rs, T. U. P. Charlt. (Ga.) 230; Anderson v. Van Alen, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 343 ; but champerty and maintenance, and the pur chase of lawsuits, are inquired into and re strained in equity as in law, and fraud will defeat an assignment. By some of the state statutes regulating assignments, the assignee may bring an action in his own name in a court of law, but the equities in defence are not excluded. See Johns v. Johns, Ohio 271; Sirlott v. Tandy, 3 Dana (Ky.) 142 ; Harper v. Butler, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 239, 7 L. Ed. 410; Defiance v. Davis, Walk. (Miss.) 69.