All assignments and transfers of any claim upon the United States, or of any part or share thereof, or interests therein, whatever may be the consideration therefor, are null and void, unless made after the allowance of such claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuance of a warrant for the payment thereof ; § 3477 R. S. See 24 Am. L. Rev. 442. But this does not apply to the passing of such claims to heirs, devisees, or assignees in bankruptcy ; Erwin v. U. S., 97 U. S. 392, 24 L. Ed. 1065.
Notice is not necessary as against the cred itor or his assignee in bankruptcy, but the claims of competing assignees or encum brancers rank as between themselves ac cording to the dates at which they have re spectively given notice to the debtor ; Pol lock, Contr. 232, citing 3 Cl. & F. 456. This applies to rights created by trust ; id. 233.
In this country it has also been held that notice of the assignment of a chose in ac tion is effective without notice or acceptance by the debtor ; Quigley v. Welter, 95 Minn. 383, 104 N. W. 236; Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111; Columbia Finance & Trust Co. v. Bank, 116 Ky. 364, 76 S. W. 156; Young v. Upson, 115 Fed. 192 ; Tingle v. Fisher, 20 W. Va. 497.
The only purpose or necessity of notice is for the protection of the assignee against sub sequent assignees or creditors or payments made by the debtor in ignorance of the as signment; Succession of Patrick, Mann. Un rep. Cas. (La.) 72 ; Chemical Co. v. McNair, 139 N. C. 326, 51 S. E. 949.
A party to an executory contract cannot assign it to a third party ; but it is held in Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 240, that a public
building contract is distinguishftd from a pri vate building contract on the theory that the public generally were invited to bid for and take public contracts regardless of the pro fessions, trades, or occupations; and that, aside from the discretion vested in the board of supervisors to reject all bids when they deemed it for the public good, or the bid of any party who had proved delinquent in a previous contract, there was no restriction upon the capacity of the contractor. Ernst v. Kunkle, 5 Ohio St. 520; City of St. Louis v. Clemens, 42 Mo. 69 ; Anderson v. De Uri oste, 96 Cal. 404, 31 Pac. 266. But in the construction of a complex plant, owners hav ing no knowledge themselves as to .how such a plant should be constructed, have a right to select the party with whom they would deal, and when the selection is made and the contract executed, there could be no substi tution of contractors without the assent of the owners ; and such a contract is not as signable by the contractor ; Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Min. Co., 127 U. S. 379, 8 Sup. Ct. 1308, 32 L. Ed. 246 ; Putnam v. Ins. Co., 123 Mass. 328, 25 Am. Rep. 93 ; Swarts v. Lighting Co., 26 R. I. 388, 59 Atl. 77; Camp bell v. County Com'rs, 64 Kan. 376, 67 Pac. 866 ; Edison v. Babka, 111 Mich. 235, 69 N. W. 499 ; Winchester v. Pyrites Co., 67 Fed. 45, 14 C. C. A. 300 ; Worden v. R. Co., 82 Ia. 735, 48 N. W. 71; Johnson v. Vickers, 139 Wis. 145, 120 N. W. 837, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1046.
See FUTURE ACQUIRED PROBERTY; INSOL VENCY; EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT; CHOSE IN