gitimate uncle; Bent v. St. Vrain, 30 Mo. 271, holding, under statute. bastard could not transmit to mother or brothers; Little v. Lake, 8 Ohio, 290, holding estate of bastard does not pass to the maternal line; Gibson v. McNeely, 11 Ohio St. 136, holding illegitimate child could not take in will as the "issue" of her mother, nor could she inherit collaterally; Moore v. Moore, 35 Vt. 101, holding, where legislature made person another's heir, former could not inherit from latter's brother. Cited in Kingsley v. Broward, 19 Fla. 746, showing conflict on this point, collecting authorities.

Denied in Butler v. Elyton L. Co., 84 Ala. 391, 392, 4 So. 678, holding, under statute, estates of bastard goes to his half brother and not to his mother; Lewis v. Eutsler, 4 Ohio St. 355, holding, under statute, brothers of bastard could take his estate; Briggs v. Greene, 10 R. I. 499, holding estate of bastard, under statute, passes to sister; Garland v. Harrison, 8 Leigh (Va.), 379, 382, holding brothers of bastard can inherit his estate; Bennett v. Toler, 15 Gratt. 627, 78 Am. Dec. 644, holding illegitimate child will take under a devise to children. Distinguished in Sutton v. Sutton, 87 Ky. 218, 12 Am. St. Rep. 477, 8 S. W. 337, holding children of bastard can take from father's illegitimate brother; Hepburn v. Dundas, 13 Gratt. 224, 225, holding children of slave, after emancipation, may take as heirs of deceased sister; Dickinson's Appeal, 42 Conn. 510, 19 Am. Rep. 563, holding bastard has inheritable blood for collateral purposes.

Illegitimate child.— Under Virginia act of 1785, recognition or proof of paternity to enable illegitimate child to inherit, must have occurred after the passage of that act, p. 260.

Rule applied in Hartinger v. Ferring, 24 Fed. 17, similarly construing the Iowa code. Cited in Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 257, 37 Am. Rep. 332, raising query as to whether legitimacy depending on acknowledgment, should be determined by law at time of the acknowledgment or at time of the birth.

Miscellaneous citations.- Cited in Pettus v. Dawson, 82 Tex. 20, 17 S. W. 714, to civil rule in note, page 262, which they refused to follow, holding mother could inherit from bastard; Dodge v. Hopkins, 14 Wis. 639, an error.

5 Wheat. 269–276, 5 L. 84, PERKINS v. RAMSEY.

Public lands.- Entry under Virginia law held void for want of certainty.

No citations.

5 Wheat. 277-290, 5 L. 87, MANDEVILLE v. WELCH.

A bill of exchange expressed to be for value received is evidence of a valuable consideration between the parties and as to third persons, p. 282.

Rule applied in Moses v. Bank, 149 U. S. 302, 37 L. 745, 13 S. Ct. 901, holding same, even if not purporting to be "for value received; " Frazer v. Carpenter, 2 McLean, 236, F. C. 5,069, holding it is evidence between holder and a remote indorser; Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 18, holding negotiable note imports consideration, though not negotiated; Mitchell v. Cotton, 2 Fla. 151, holding words "for value received" import a consideration; Horn v. Fuller, 6 N. H. 513, holding every promissory note imports a consideration; Doe v. Burnham, 31 N. H. 430, holding to avoid note, it should appear that note was given for liquors sold without a license; Jones v. Holliday, 11 Tex. 415, 62 Am. Dec. 488, stating general rule to be that consideration of an unsealed contract must be averred and proved, bills and notes being exceptions.

Distinguished in Felt v. Judd, 3 Utah, 416, 4 Pac. 244, holding in action on nonnegotiable paper, consideration must be alleged; McNear v. Atwood, 17 Me. 436, where the order did not partake of the character of a bill or note.

Assignor of chose in action cannot fraudulently interfere to defeat rights of assignee in suit brought to enforce those rights, p. 283. Rule affirmed and applied in Hazelton Tripod-Boiler Co. v. Railway Co., 72 Fed. 328, holding equity will protect rights of assignees; Dazey v. Mills, 5 Gilm. 70, holding declarations of nominal plaintiff after parting with interest, inadmissible to defeat action; Taylor v. Galland, 3 G. Greene, 29, holding, where parties undertake to settle a controversy by assigning conflicting claims to third party, courts will favor such assignment; Blackerby v. Holton, 5 Dana (Ky.), 522, holding equity will enforce the assignment of a chose in action as being a declaration of a trust; Hackett v. Martin, 8 Me. 80, holding no act of assignor after assignment can control it; Matthews v. Houghton, 10 Me. 421, holding declarations of assignor, subsequent to assignment, are inadmissible; Pitts v. Holmes, 10 Cush. 96, holding assignee of chose in action can sue in assignor's name with his consent; Scott v. Metcalf, 13 Smedes & M. 569, holding assignor of note stands in trust relation to assignee, for whom he is to collect the money; Alexander v. Overton, 36 Neb. 505, 54 N. W. 826, holding where money paid purported to be plaintiff's, and titles were in her name, she could maintain action for wrongful sale; Sloan v. Sommers, 14 N. J. L. 512, 513, 514, holding court will not permit nominal plaintiff to release action, without consent of real plaintiff; Parsons v. Woodward, 22 N. J. L. 206, holding any beneficial contract may be assigned, and courts of law will protect rights of assignee suing in name of assignor; Davenport v. Elizabeth, 43 N. J. L. 151, holding assignee, being real plaintiff, is liable for costs; Freund v. Bank, 76 N. Y. 356, holding when a debtor has notice of assignment of a chose in action he cannot make valid payment to assignor; Strong v. Strong. 2 Aikens, 378, holding equitable interest of assignee is protected at law against a

fraudulent discharge by nominal plaintiff. Cited, arguendo, in Price ▼. Bradford, 5 Ga. 366, collecting authorities.

Distinguished in Johnson v. Shields, 32 Me. 428, holding widow's release of unassigned right of dower, except to party in possession, is of no effect; Crawford v. Brooke, 4 Gill, 221, holding acts of assignor at time of assignment competent evidence.

Equitable mortgage.- To constitute an equitable mortgage not only a deposit of title papers, but an intent to give security must be shown, p. 284.

Cited in Wellborn v. Williams, 9 Ga. 92, 52 Am. Dec. 432, distinguishing vendor's lien from an equitable mortgage; Rogers v. Hosack, 18 Wend. 334, holding covenant to pay certain debts out of a designated fund, when obtained, is not an equitable mortgage; United States v. Cutts, 1 Sumn. 141, 142, F. C. 14,912, but decisions put upon other grounds. See note on subject of equitable mortgages, 4 Am. St. Rep. 697.

Equitable assignment.- An order drawn for part of a fund does not amount to an assignment or give a lien, unless drawee consents, by an acceptance of the draft, or an obligation to accept may be implied from custom, p. 286.

This holding is affirmed and applied by the following citing cases: McLoon v. Linquist, 2 Ben. 13, F. C. 8,899, holding same as to advances made on bill of lading; McGinnis v. Flynn, 23 Blatchf. 469, 27 Fed. 35, holding check is not an equitable assignment, as also in Strain v. Gourdin, 2 Woods, 383, F. C. 13,521, to same effect; Bosworth v. Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 618, 24 U. S. App. 413, holding drawing of drafts without their acceptance does not amount to an equitable assignment; Fluker v. Henry, 27 Ala. 402, 403, holding bill of exchange, until accepted, does not operate as an assignment; Welch v. Mayer, 4 Colo. App. 444, 36 Pac. 614, holding assignment of part of a debt is not operative, unless debtor consents; Weinstock v. Bellwood, 12 Bush (Ky.), 141, holding the assignment of part of a debt does not vest assignee with right of action against debtor; Russell v. Ferguson, 7 Mart. (La.) (N. S.) 520, holding a party is not obliged to accept several drafts for one debt; Poydras v. Delamare, 13 La. 101, holding agent having funds of principal in his hands, is not individually bound to payee for refusing to pay; Jackson v. Tiernan, 15 La. 491, enforcing assignment of part of a debt where obligation resulting from it may be implied from the custom of trade; dissenting opinion, Keith v. Mackey, 5 Rob. (La.) 284, majority holding if drawer, after holder's neglect to present, withdraws funds, he, under code, will be responsible. to holder; Getchell v. Maney, 69 Me. 444, holding statute did not authorize assignment of part of one's wages; Gibson v. Finley, 4 Md. Ch. 78, holding unaccepted draft not an equitable assignment; Wilson v. Carson, 12 Md. 74, declaring there was not an equitable assignment; as

also Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 18, 32 Am. Dec. 196; Palmer v. Merrill, 6 Cush. 287, 52 Am. Dec. 785, holding assignment of insurance policy pro tanto, policy being retained by assured, is not effectual though notice is given to insurers; Lyon v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 55 Mich. 146, 54 Am. Rep. 357, 20 N. W. 831, holding arrangement by which employer was to pay premiums to insurance company from employee's wages, amounted to an assignment; Wadlington v. Covert, 51 Miss. 636, holding order on third person is not absolute discharge of an antecedent debt, unless accepted as such; Menken v. Gumbel, 57 Miss. 758, holding acceptance of an order to pay sum out of balance due, takes precedence of a garnishment; Burnett v. Crandall, 63 Mo. 413, holding assignee of part of a claim assigned without debtor's consent cannot recover on it; McGrade v. Savings Institution, 4 Mo. App. 338, holding that holder of check because of usage may sue bank for refusing payment; Rice v. Dudley, 34 Mo. App. 392, holding garnishment will prevail over prior unaccepted order for part of a fund; Covert v. Rhodes, 48 Ohio St. 73, 27 N. E. 96, holding draft for part of fund unaccepted, does not constitute an equitable assignment; Hopkins v. Beebe, 26 Pa. St. 88, holding holder of a bill of exchange is not owner of property, which drawer has remitted to drawee; Jermyn v. Moffitt, 75 Pa. St. 402, holding an assignment which professes to transfer a debt for wages not yet earned against any person who may thereafter employ the assignor, although there be notice of assignment to the employer, is insufficient, without his acceptance; Appeals of City of Philadelphia, 86 Pa. St. 182, holding municipality is not bound to recognize partial assignments; as also in Geist's Appeal, 104 Pa. St. 355; Railway Co. v. Volkert, 58 Ohio St. 369, 370, 50 N. E. 925, holding assignment of half of a judgment may be enforced in equity; Carter v. Nichols, 58 Vt. 555, 5 Atl. 198, holding employer is not bound by partial assignment of employee's future wages. Cited in Am., etc., Co. v. Gas Co., 47 Fed. 47, but not necessary to decision. See valuable note on this topic in 54 Am. Rep. 781; also 2 Am. St. Rep. 473, note.

Distinguished in Methven v. Light Co., 66 Fed. 115, 35 U. S. App. 67, where debtor had recognized the assignment, in the following: Exchange Bank v. McLoon, 73 Me. 505, 510, 40 Am. Rep. 389, 394; James v. Newton, 142 Mass. 373, 376, 56 Am. Rep. 695, 698, 8 N. E. 125, 126; Superintendent, etc., of P. S. v. Heath, 15 N. J. Eq. 28; Harris Co. v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 27, 2 Am. St. Rep. 470, 3 S. W. 246, and National Bank v. Kimberlands, 16 W. Va. 589, 590, all holding partial assignment of a debt is enforceable in equity; in Schultz v. Sutter, 3 Mo. App. 141, holding a corporation can make an assignment of a call already due on stock, since it transfers the entire interest; dissenting opinion, Shaver v. Telegraph Co., 57 N. Y. 472, majority holding a conditional acceptance of an order afterwards revoked, does not amount to an equitable assignment;

Lowndes v. Ladson, Rich. Eq. Cas. 319, holding order drawn on part of a fund will, as between the parties, be enforced in equity as an equitable assignment.

Equitable assignment.- Where an order is drawn for the whole of a fund, it amounts, after notice, to an equitable assignment, p. 286. The following citing cases affirm and apply this holding: Warren v. Emerson, 1 Curt. 241, 242, F. C. 17,195, holding maker having acquired equitable interest of assignor, may use it in his defense to action on note; United States v. Cutts, 1 Sumn. 146, F. C. 14,912, holding transfer of stock, notwithstanding statute requiring it should be on books, passed an equitable interest; Barcroft v. Denny, 5 Houst. 14, holding a verbal acceptance of written order for payment of money amounts to an equitable assignment; Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 98, 73 Am. Dec. 524, holding, under code, an order for money, for full amount, is an assignment; Cashman v. Harrison, 90 Cal. 302, 27 Pac. 285, holding bill of exchange does not operate as an equitable assignment, until after acceptance; McWilliams v. Webb, 32 Iowa, 579, holding, where order is drawn on the whole of a fund, after notice to drawee, it binds the funds in his hands in favor of payee, as against an attaching creditor of drawer; First Nat. Bank v. Railway Co., 52 Iowa, 381, 35 Am. Rep. 282, 3 N. W. 398, holding bill of exchange, unaccepted, is not an assignment; Buckner v. Sayre, 18 B. Mon. 755, holding that acceptance of a bill of exchange is an appropriation of that fund to the holder; Robbins v. Bacon, 3 Me. 349, holding order for the whole of a fund, after notice to drawee, binds the fund in his hands; Tripp v. Brownell, 12 Cush. 382, holding order by seaman for wages due, on settlement of voyage, is an assignment; Grammel v. Carmer, 55 Mich. 204, 54 Am. Rep. 365, 21 N. W. 419, holding a draft does not operate as an assignment; in dissenting opinion of same case, 213, 21 N. W. 424; Lewis v. Traders' Bank, 30 Minn. 136, 14 N. W. 587, holding unaccepted draft is not an assignment of fund; St. John v. Homans, 8 Mo. 386, holding mere drawing of a check is not an assignment; Janney v. Bank of Missouri, 12 Mo. 586, holding bank does not become debtor to holder of government draft, until acceptance; distinguished in dissenting opinion of same case, 587; Walker v. Mauro, 18 Mo. 566, holding an order for the whole of debt is an equitable assignment of it; Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 18, 19, 100 Am. Dec. 250, 251, holding bill drawn upon debtor is evidence of an assignment; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 564, it seems an indorsement of a promissory note may be treated as a bill of exchange; Morton v. Naylor, 1 Hill, 585, holding order on tenant to pay rent, accepted, is an equitable assignment; Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 115, 118, 51 Am. Dec. 356, 358, holding an unaccepted draft not being an assignment is not a valid gift causa mortis; Kahnweiler v. Anderson, 78 N. C. 143, holding bill of exchange operates as an equitable assignment; Gardner v. National City Bank, 39 Ohio St. 605, hold