272 ARTICLE 8.

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. Mcllwain, 32 Md. 99; Shriner v. 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 assignment thereof.
Handy v. 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
1829, ch. 51. The motives of the assignor in making the assignment may be in-
quired 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 named."
Gable v. Scarlett, 56 Md. 174. Cj. Lucas v. Byrne, 35 Md. 492.

The assignee must be "bona fide entitled," etc. Canfield v. Mcllwaine, 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, 6.

An assignment may be made not only by the original plantiff in a judgment, 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 assign-
ment 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 ia 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 dis-
charge 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 secs. 5,
6 and 7.)

This section applied. Dickey v. Pocomoke Bank, 89 Md. 293; Hewell v. Coul-
bourn, 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. 28, sub-sec. 27.

An. Code, sec. 2. 1904, sec. 2. 1888, sec. 2. 1830, ch. 165, sec." 2.
2. The equitable assignee of a judgment may issue scire facias in his
own name, to revive the same without administration upon the estate of the
legal plaintiff.

The assignee of a judgment need not recite in the sci. fa. that the assignment was
in writing. Bank of United States v. Lyles, 10 G. & J. 326.