188

ASSIGNMENT OF CHOSES IN ACTION".

[ART 8

ARTICLE VIIL

ASSIGNMENT OF CHOSES IN ACTION.

1. Assignee of money claims may sue in his own name. 2. Sci. fa. by assignee. 3. Defendant's defences against as- signee. 4. Death of legal plaintiff before judg- ment. 5. Surety upon paying the debt, may sue in his own name. 6. When surety may have execution. 7. Payment by one of several sureties. 8. Assignment by State's attorney to surety, when authorized. 9. When assignee of bond may sue obligee. 10. Oath to be made by obligee at time of assignment.

Assignment of Wages. 11. When an assignment of wages or salary is valid. 12. Proof of service of assignment upon employer. 13. Affidavit. 14. The term "assignment" defined. 15. Usurious transaction. 16. Assignment of wages to be earned more than six months in the fu- ture. 17. When equity will enjoin the en- forcement of an assignment of wages.

1904, art. 8, sec. 1. 1SSS. art. S, sec. 1. I860. art. 9. sec. 1. 1829, ch. 51
1830. ch. 165. sec. 1.

1. The assignee of any judgment, bond, specialty, or other chose in
action for the payment of money, or any legacy or distributive share of
the estate of a deceased person bona fide entitled thereto by assignment
in writing signed by the person authorized to make the same, may, by
virtue of such assignment, maintain an action or issue an execution in
his own name against the debtor therein named, in the same manner as
the assignor might have done before the assignment.

What may be assigned.

A policy of life insurance is a chose in action for the payment of money,
and may be transferred by assignment in writing under this section. Hew-
lett v. Home for Incurables. 74 Md. 354; Souder v. Home Friendly Society,
72 Md. 516; Ritter v. Smith. 70 Md. 265.

An open account may be assigned under this section. The private act of
1880. ch. 273. does not prevent employees of the corporations mentioned
from assigning their wages. Shatter v. Union Mining Co., 55 Md. 82; Craw-
ford v. Brooke, 4 Gill, 222.

All contracts for the payment of money whether express or implied, are
within the purview of this section. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Flack. 3 Md.
354; Stewart v. Rogers, 19 Md. 98. note (b); Crawford v. Brooke, 4 Gill,
222; Lamar v. Manro, 10 G. & ,T. 64.

A covenant for quiet enjoyment can not be assigned under this section.
Dakin v. Pomeroy. 9 Gill, 6; Crawford v. Brooke. 4 Gill. 221.

The operation of this section is not limited to a single assignment. Spiker
v. Nydegger. 30 Md: 321; Kent v. Somerrell. 7 G. & J. 265.