ART. 8] ASSIGNMENT OK CHOSES IN ACTION. 189

Validity of assignment.

The assignment need not he written on or attached to the chose in action.
Stine r Young, 20 Mil. 238; Kent v. Somervell, 7 G. & J. 265.

"We hereby endorse and assign the within and direct payment to he made
to "P'riscilla Lynch," is a good assignment. The endorsement of a sealed
instrument in blank may be filled in at any time. Jackson v. Myers, 43 Md.
462. See also, Talbott v. Suit, 68 Md. 447; Canfield v. Mcllwaln, 32 Md. 99;
Shriner r. Lamborn. 12 Md. 174; Chesley v. Taylor, 3 Gill, 255.

A bequest of a single bill by the obligee, is an inchoate transfer of the bill,
which, when perfected by the assent of the executor, is a complete assign-
ment thereof. Handy r. Collins, 60 Md. 245; Kent v. Somervell, 7 G. &
J. 265.

When it is shown that the assignment was made for the purpose of
enabling the assignor to qualify as a witness, the assignment is not bona fide
under the act of 182S), ch. 51. The motives of the assignor in making the
assignment may be inquired into. Crawford v. Brooke, 4 Gill, 213; McDowell
v. Goldsmith, 6 Md. 343.

Generally.

This section only enables the assignee to sue in his own name. It does
not alter the nature of the assignment. Cox v. Sprigg, 6 Md. 286. See also,
Harwood v. Jones, 10 G. & J. 419.

The assignment of a single bill is entirely statutory, and does not depend
upon the principles of mercantile law. Talbott v. Suit, 68 Md. 448.

This section being in derogation of the common law, will be strictly
construed. The assignee cannot maintain a suit against one not "the
debtor therein mimed." Gable v. Scarlett, 56 Md. 174. Cf. Lucas v. Byrne,
35 Md. 492.

The assignee must be "bona fide entitled," etc. Canfield v. McIlwaine, 32
Md. 98.

As to the assignment of rent under this section and the remedies of the
assignee thereon, see Outtoun v. Dulin, 72 Md. 540.

The chose in action, must be purely "for the payment of money," and a
chose in action cannot be assigned under this section so as to give the
assignee the right to sue for money and leave in the assignor the right to
sue for the breach of a stipulation. If in such case the obligor promises to
pay the assignee, the latter may sue in his own name. Gordon v. Downey,
1 Gill, 51. See also. Banks v. McClellan. 24 Md. 80; Dakin v. Pomeroy, 9
Gill. G.

An assignment may be made not only by the original plaintiff in a judg-
ment, but also by any bona fide assignee. McAleer v. Young, 40 Md. 445;
Kent v. Somervell, 7 G. & J. 265.

To enable an assignee to sue in his own name, there must have been an
assignment of a non-negotiable chose in action. Otherwise the suit should
be in the name of the assignor to the use of the assignee. Trademen's
Bank v. Green, 57 Md. 605; Sunderland v. Cowan. 106 Md. 457.

The assignee of a non-negotiable chose in action may sue either in the
name of the assignor to his own use, or in his own name. Hampson v.
Owens, 55 Md. 586.

The assignee need not aver in his declaration a promise by the defendant
to pay him the account, nor that it was bona fide assigned to him, nor need
he allege that the assignment is in writing. Stewart v. Rogers, 19 Md. 115;
Union Bank v. Tillard, 26 Md. 451.

A witness is not incompetent because it appears that the assignment was
made for the purpose of removing his disqualification to testify. Reynolds
v. Manning, 15 Md. 521.

This section has no application to a bond conditioned upon the faithful
discharge of the duties of an office, nor where a surety seeks contribution
from his co-surety. Crisfield v. State. 55 Md. 196; Carroll v. Bowie, 7 Gill,
43. (See sections 5, 6 and 7.)

This section applied. Dickey r. Pocomoke Bank. 89 Md. 293; Hewell v.
Coulbourn, 54 Md. 64: Kent v. Somervell, 7 G. & J. 270.

This section enlarges the powers of an assignee, who prior to its adoption,
had peculiarly an equitable remedy. Schaferman v. O'Brien, 28 Md. 574.

For a form of declaration in a suit by an assignee of a chose in action,
see art. 75, sec. 24, sub-sec. 27.