The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-01-09

ed, are void because against public pol
icy, applies to this transaction.
From this it follows that the assign
ment in question, having, as l have
already held, been made for the spe-
cific purpose mentioned, were void and,
therefore, became worthless for any
purpose whatever. Therefore, when the
plaintiff was discharged of all his OBJ
legations by the insolvency proceeding,
his debt to Heisen was thereby extin-
guished with all his other obligations.
1t is contended, in the very able brief
of counsel for defendant Heisen, that
While in law an assignment of a thing
which has no existence at the time
thereof is void, yet such assignments
are recognized in equity and will be en-
forced. An examination of the cases
cited by the learned counsel in sup
port of this rule shows that there is a
wide difference between the case at bar
and those in which equity has recognize
ed and enforced the rule stated.
One of the strongest cases cited by
counsel is Edwards VS.. Peterson, Sixth
Am. State Rep, page 207 In that case
steamboat company, but was dis
charged the next day after executing
the assignment, which was given to
secure the payment for groceries fur
nished and to be furnished to the as
signor and his family The said assign
ment covered wages to be earned in
| the employ of said steamboat company
between the day of it's date, October
1-+ fol
Both the assignor and the steamboat
company expected the formers services
would be again required by the latter
and that his employment would then
begin. 1t did begin November 1st and
continued until after April 1st.
The assignor was decreed an insolvent
debtor on January Dist, and on
that day the assignee demanded from
the steamboat company the wages to
be earned thereafter during the time
covered by the assignment. Invoking
the equitable rule referred to by coun-
sci, the Supreme Court of Maine held
that the assignment was valid one.
1t will be observed from this brief
statement of the facts of that case that,
at the time of the execution OF the as
signment, the assignor was actually in
the employment of the company; that
something occurred by which he was
discharged the next day after the max
ing of the assignment; but later-a lit
tie less than one month from the time
of his discharge-he again went to work
for the company and continued so en-
gagged until after the month of April
following. The assignment in that case
was undoubtedly made in view of such
employment, and the mere fact that
there were a few days during which he
was not thus employed did not amount
to sufficient reason, in an equitable
view, to upset the assignment.
There are cited by counsel for the de-
PENDANT other cases in which the facts
are different from those of the case at
bar and in which the equitable rule is
sustained. I have no hesitation in ex-
pressing the opinion that any rule of
law that would authorize the mortgage
ing of a mans future earning power,
without restriction as to time, would be
against public policy. Men, in their
transa actions with each other, often be-
come irretrievably involved in debt, and
IT was in the interest of good govern
ment and for the promotion of public
peace that the law-making power crys-
talllzed into positive enactmentS the
principles Of bankruptcy and insolvency
laws. These laws, it is true, like all
others, may oftentimes be abused, yet
the wisdom of ages has demonstrated
their efficacy in maintaining good citi-
Zenship. Without them, men would Of
ten be harassed, by importuning and
persistent creditors, to perhaps such
straits of desperation as that they
might be tempted to commit crime.
Upon the same principle, If a man
could assign his entire future wage
earning power. he would be placed in a
position in which he could not exercise
that independence of character and
judgment which is so essential to good
citizenship and, therefore, good govern
ment
For the foregoing reasons the plaintiff
VIII take judgment. Findings in ac-
cordance herewith.