evidence that may be adduced in reference thereto. Binswanger v. Hewitt (1913), 79 Misc. 425, 140 N. Y. Supp. 143.

An order, for the payment of a sum of money, directing that the amount be charged to the drawer on account of a contract previously entered into between him and the drawee, amounts in law to an assignment, pro tanto, of what moneys may thereafter bc payable on such contract and substitutes the payee as the recipient, to that extent, of any future payments on the contract. Weniger v. Fourteenth Street Store (1908), 191 N. Y. 423, affg., 117 App. Div. 921, 102 N. Y. Supp. 1150.

A check is not an assignment of the fund on deposit to the credit of the drawer pro tanto, and the holder is merely the agent of the drawer for the purpose of collecting it. Chrzanowska v. Corn Exchange Bank (1916), 173 App. Div. 285, 159 N. Y. Supp. 385.

A written order of an employee, directing his employer to pay to a third person, to whom the employee was not indebted and to whom the order was not delivered, a certain portion of his weekly salary for not exceeding a certain number of weeks, is revocable at will. Schreiber v. Keller Mechanical Engraving Co. (1908), 57 Misc. 644, 108 N. Y. Supp. 658.

Equitable assignment. Brooksville Granite Co. v. Latty (1913), 83 Misc. 384, 144 N. Y. Supp. 1042. No particular form of words is necessary to constitute an equitable assignment. Hofferberth v. Duckett (1916), 175 App. Div. 480, 162 N. Y. Supp. 167. Any act, which makes an appropriation of a fund, amounts to an equitable assignment of it. Muller v. Kling (1913), 209 N. Y. 239, 244, affg., 149 App. Div. 176, 133 N. Y. Supp. 614.

dent.

Equitable assignment may be made by corporation to its presiHofferberth v. Duckett (1916), 175 App. Div. 480, 162 N. Y. Supp. 167.

The indication of a fund either expressly or impliedly from which payment may be made is an essential element in an equitable assignment. Conti v. Rhinel (1917), 164 N. Y. Supp. 52.

Check effecting an equitable assignment of a fund. Foley v. New York Savings Bank (1913), 157 App. Div. 868, 142 N. Y. Supp. 822.

The acceptance of an order to pay to the drawee a sum of money and deduct it from the next payment due the drawer on a

contract for doing certain work, operates only as an equitable assignment of the balance due on the contract but does not hold the acceptor for a greater amount. Carboy v. Polstein Realty & Construction Co. (1909), 62 Misc. 302, 114 N. Y. Supp. 838.

An agreement either written or oral to pay a debt out of a designated fund does not give an equitable lien upon the fund or operate as an equitable assignment thereof. Holmes v. Bell (1910), 139 App. Div. 455, 124 N. Y. Supp. 301, affd., 200 N. Y. 586.

Assignment of wages. Erie Railroad Co. v. Smith (1910), 68 Misc. 136, 123 N. Y. Supp. 973, affd., 144 App. Div. 911, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1122.

Where a contractor entitled to payment of instalments as the work progressed, gave an order that the owner pay a certain amount to the plaintiff, the order worked an assignment of the fund to become due, but only to the extent that the funds were earned by the contractor by due performance of his contract. O'Connor v. Smallwood (1918), 183 App. Div. 443, 170 N. Y. Supp. 756.

Notice of the assignment of a debt need not be given to the debtor. Doughty v. Weston (1915), 90 Misc. 304, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1035.

Filing assignment of wages or salary. See Personal Property Law (L. 1909, ch. 45), § 42. B., C. & G. Consol. Laws (2d Ed.), Vol. 5, p. 6194.

Filing assignmeent of moneys to become due under building contract. See Lien Law (L. 1909, ch. 38), § 15. B., C. & G. Consol. Laws, (2d Ed.), p. 4834.

ARTICLE VI.

WHAT PASSES UNDER AN ASSIGNMENT.

(Fiero, Spec. Act., 3rd Ed., pp. 24-27.)

It cannot be questioned but that a single debt may be partially assigned to one or more assignees, but such an assignment creates equitable rights in the assignees which can be enforced in a court of equity alone, and in an action to which the assignor and assignees as well as the debtor are parties, so that a court of equity can adjust its relief to the satisfaction of the rights of the parties. While a court of equity recognizes and enforces a partial

assignment it does not allow the recovery of the partial amount. in favor of the assignee, in one suit, and the maintenance of another action by the assignor, but incites that all the parties interested in the cause of action must be before the court that all their rights may be adjusted in one action, thus recognizing and enforcing the rule that the cause of action cannot be split and the debtor forced to submit to several actions. Carroll v. Mirror Films, Inc. (1917), 178 App. Div. 644, 165 N. Y. Supp. 676, revg., 98 Misc. 650, 163 N. Y. Supp. 268.

The assignee of a portion of an indivisible claim for commissions due for procuring a sale of real estate cannot bring a legal action against the debtor without making all persons who have an interest in the claim parties, so that the rights of all may be determined in one action. Dickinson v. Tysen (1908), 125 App. Div. 735, 110 N. Y. Supp. 269.

The assignee of a cause of action to recover the value of personal property cannot be regarded as maintaining an action as the trustee of an express trust authorized as such to bring an action in the name of his assignor where there is nothing to indicate that the action is anything other than one brought by an assignor after he had fully and completely transferred to another the title to the cause of action. Whiting v. Glass (1916), 217 N. Y. 333.

ASSOCIATIONS.

See UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS.

BOND, PENAL, ACTION UPON.

See MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS AND RIGHTS OF ACTIONS.

CHATTELS, ACTION TO RECOVER.

See REPLEVIN.

CHATTELS, FORECLOSURE OF LIENS UPON.

(Fiero, Spec. Act., 3rd Ed., pp. 28-39.)

See Griffin and Curtis on Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales (3d Edition).

SECTIONS OF STATUTE.

LIEN LAW, § 206. Enforcement by action; when and in what cases.

§ 207. Warrant to seize chattel; proceedings thereon.

§ 208. Judgment.

§ 209. Action in inferior court.

§ 210. Application.

For Forms and Precedents, see Fiero, Spec. Act., 3rd Ed., pp. 34-37.

Lien Law, § 206. Enforcement by action; when and in what courts.

An action may be maintained to forclose a lien upon a chattel, for a sum of money, in any case where such a lien exists at the commencement of the action. The action may be brought in any court, of record or not of record, which would have jurisdiction to render a judgment, in an action founded upon a contract, for a sum equal to the amount of the lien.

p. 4935.)

Formerly Code Civ. Pro., § 1737. (B., C. & G. Consol. Laws, 2nd Ed., Lien Law, § 207. Warrant to seize chattel; proceedings thereupon. Where the action is brought in the supreme court, in the city court of the city of New York, or a county court, if the plaintiff is not in possession of the chattel, a warrant may be granted by the court, or a judge thereof, commanding the sheriff to seize the chattel and safely keep it to abide the final judgment in the action. The provisions of title third of chapter seven of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to such warrant, and to the proceedings to procure it, and after it has been issued, as if it was a warrant of attachment, except as otherwise expressly prescribed in this article.

Formerly Code Civ. Pro., § 1738. (B., C. & G. Consol. Laws, 2nd Ed., p. 4935.) Lien Law, § 208. Judgment.

In an action brought in a court specified in the last section, final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, must specify the amount of the lien, and direct a sale of the chattel to satisfy the same and the costs, if any, by a referee appointed thereby, or an officer designated therein, in like manner as where a sheriff sells personal property by virture of an execution; and the application by him of the proceeds of the sale, less his fees and expenses, to the payment of the amount of the lien, and the costs of the action. It must also provide for the payment of the surplus to the owner of the chattel, and for the safe keeping of the surplus, if necessary, until it is claimed by him. If a defendant, upon whom the summons is personally served, is liable for the amount of the lien, or for any part thereof, it may also award payment accordingly.

Formerly Code Civ. Pro., § 1739. (B., C. & G. Consol. Laws, 2nd Ed., p. 4936.) Lien Law, § 209. Action in inferior court.

Where the action is brought in a court, other than one of those specified in section two hundred and seven, if the plaintiff is not in possession of the

chattel, a warrant, commanding the proper officer to seize the chattel, and safely keep it to abide the judgment, may be issued, in like manner as a warrant of attachment may be issued in an action founded upon a contract, brought in the same court; and the provisions of law, applicable to a warrant of attachment, issued out of that court, apply to a warrant, issued as prescribed in this section, and to the proceedings to procure it, and after it has been issued; except as otherwise specified in the judgment. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff, in such an action, must correspond to a judgment, rendered as prescribed in the last section, except that it must direct the sale of the chattel by an officer to whom an execution, issued out of the court, may be directed; and the payment of the surplus, if its safe keeping is necessary, to the county treasurer, for the benefit of the owner.

Formerly Code Civ. Pro., § 1740. (B., C. & G. Consol. Laws, 2nd Ed., p. 4936.)

Lien Law, § 210. Application.

Sections two hundred and six to two hundred and nine inclusive do not affect any existing right or remedy to foreclose or satisfy a lien upon a chattel without action; and they do not apply to a case, where another mode of enforcing a lien upon a chattel is specially prescribed by law.

Formerly Code Civ. Pro., § 1741. (B., C. & G. Consol. Laws, 2nd Ed., p. 4937.)

In a proceeding to forclose a chattel mortgage after default, the plaintiff is entitled to a warrant of seizure of the mortgaged chattels in the possession of the defendant, without setting forth in his moving papers matters required by section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Coiro v. Baron (1913), 158 App. Div. 591, 143 N. Y. Supp. 853, overruling Faraci v. Maller (1912), 154 App. Div. 303, 138 N. Y. Supp. 961; People ex rel. Mehlin & Sons Piano Co. v. Lauer (1913), 80 Misc. 438, 141 N. Y. Supp. 299.