Rainwater-Bradford Hat Co. v. McBride

Citations

• 117 F. 597
• 54 C.C.A. 659
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4463

Syllabus

<p>1. Assignments fob Benefit of Cbeditobs—Yaridity—Laws of Indian Territory.</p> <p>A deed of general assignment made under the statute in force in Indian Territory relating to assignments (Mansf. Dig. Ark. c. 8) is not void on Its face because of a provision directing the assignee to sell “all the property” assigned to him, at public auction, contrary to section 307 of the statute, which requires him to collect choses in action, where such direction is immediately followed by a provision that the assignee “shall, in executing this trust, be governed in all things by the laws regulating assignments for the benefit of creditors now in force in the Indian Territory.”</p> <p>2. Same—Omissi >n of Property.</p> <p>The omission from a deed of general assignment of a claim for compensation for personal services to be performed by the assignor under an Indivisible contract, which services had not been completed, did not render the assignment invalid, since the assignor had no claim at the time which he could transfer by the assignment.</p>