Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Section-III-Of-The-Equitable-Defences.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:48:12+00:00

Document:
(gh) Shuttleworth v. Bruce, 7 Rob. 160.
(gj) Flynn v. Allen, 57 Penn. St. 4S2.
(h) See supra, note (q), p. * 227. And see Spain v. Hamilton, 1 Wallace, 604.
(i) Willis v. Twambly, 13 Mass. 204; Stocks v. Dobson, 19 E. L. & E. 96; Bush v. Lathrop, 22 N. Y. (8 Smith) 535.
()) Crocker v. Whitney, 10 Mass 316, 319'; Mowry v. Todd, 12 id. 281; Jones v. Witter, 13 id. 304; Fay v. Jones, 18 Barb. 340; Risley v. Risley, 11 Rob. (La) 298; Small v. Browder, 11 B. Mon. 212; Clodfelter v. Cox, 1 Sneed, 330; Myers v. The United Guarantee, etc. Co. 31 E. L. & E. 538; Fanton v. Fairfield County Bank, 23 Conn. 485. See also supra, note (q), p. *227.
1 Notice, not the assignment, fixes the rights of the parties. Miller v. Kreiter, 76 Penn. St. 78. - As to third persons, the assignment of a chose in action is valid without notice to the debtor. Thaver v. Daniels, 113 Mass. 129. - K.
In New York and in some other States, the assignee of a chose in action, may now bring an action upon it, in his own name, by statutory provision. But this change is only in the form of the action and not in its effect. The assignee is still subject to the same equities of defence as before. That is, if the defendant can show that he, in good faith, paid the debt, or a part of the debt, to the assignor, before the assignment, or before he had any knowledge of the assignment, the defence is as effectual as if the action were in the name of the assignor.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.