Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1900-11-24
l1e7l


Numerous decisions of the courts In
the matter Of salary assignments prove
that the sharks can never collect dol.
lar from the city or county on this kind
Of paper.
An assignment of wages to become
due. without limit as to amount or
time. held invalid, without acceptance
by employer and notice to attaching
creditor.-Steinback VS.. Brant (NIinn.),
81 n. w. O51.
In Bliss vs.. Lawrence. So n. Y. 442.
1t was held that although a public of.
flcer may have an assignat;e interest
in his salary not yet due. ne cannot
make a valid assignment of 1t in ad.
vance, because public policy forbids
such transaction. An assignment by
United States treasury official Of a
months salary in advance at n dis
count of ten per cent was, OH this
ground, declared invalid.
Billings vs. O'Brlen, II Abb. Pr n.
s. (N. " 2l6, an assignment Of n sim.
liar character, was declared invalid on
the ground that It tends to impair the
efficiency Of the officer by diminishing
his interest In the performance Of his
duties and rendering him to a great
extent the mere slave or servant Of his
creditor or assignee in working out a
part debtor obligation.
To support an assignment at law the
subject matter thereof must have nc.
tual or potential existence at the time
of the assignment.-Am. and Eng. Enc.
Of Law. l.. $50.
An assignment Of an expectancy to
be forced In equity must be founded
upon a valuable cOnsideration.-Am.
and Eng. Enc. OF Law. l., $50.
1t was held In Vaudeville vs. Welch.
8 Wheat (U. s. $50, that an order
drawn on fund for only a part there
Of does not constitute an assignment
of that part, on the ground that n cred.
ltOr shall not be permitted to split up
a single cause of action into many ac-
tons without the assent of his debtor.
In New York an assignment by a
sheriff Of such fees rs he may become
entitled to receive from the State or
county, for public services thereafter
to be rendered, Is contrary to public
policy and void.
BOwery National Bank of n. Y, vs..
John Wilson. 1t Is settled In this State
that an assignment by public officer
OF his unearned salary IL contrary to
public policy and void, citing numerous
cases.
An assignment by mail-carrler In
the pOstOfiice department of a months
salary not yet earned Is void, as against
public policy.
4 mall.carrler Is not guilty of EN-.
bezzlement by approprlating to his
own use salary earned by him, al
though he had made n void assignment
thereof before II was earned and taken
an appointment as agent from the as
signee to collect 1t from the latter, since
he was not In fact an agent In collect.
ing the money, because the assignment
was void The reason of the rule Is
that the public service may not he so
good and efficient when the unearned
salary has been assigned as when 1t
has not been, and that the public SER
vice Is protected by protecting those
engaged in the performance of public
duties; and this, not upon the ground
of their private and individual inter.
ests, but that Of the necessity of secur-
ing the efficiency Of the public service
by seeing to 1t that the funds provided
for its maintenance should be received
by those who are to perform the work
ed for their payment