16 Me. 252 | Me. | 1839
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
The order named in the exceptions cannot be regarded as negotiable, because it was not drawn for any specific amount and it was payable only upon a contingency. It did however operate as an assignment of the amount which might be received. Cutts v. Perkins, 12 Mass. R. 206; Robbins v. Bacon, 3 Greenl. 346. And that would be sufficient to prevent any attachment of it as the property of the defendant, if there were not a suggestion, that it was invalid, and so ineffectual to transfer the property. Such an allegation having been made, the statute provides that the assignee may be summoned and become a party to the suit, and that the validity of the assignment may be tried and decided. Stat. 1821, c. 61, § 7. The language of the statute must be regarded as embracing all written transfers or assignments, whatever may be their form. The law must decide what is an assignment, and if decided to partake of that character it will be included in the class of instruments contemplated by the statute. This is indicated both by the language and design of it.
Exceptions sustained.