This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1918 Excerpt: ...or to become due, operates when delivered to the payee as an equitable assignment or appropriation of the fund pro tanto, and no acceptance by the drawee is necessary." In Title Ins. etc. Co. v. Williamson, 18 Cal. App. 324, 123 Pac. 245, rehearing denied 18 Cal. App. 329, 123 Pac. 247, it was held that where the owner deposited the contract price with a bank to be paid by the bank to the contractor according to the terms of the contract, an order given by the contractor to a materialman directed to the bonk was a valid assignment of the fund, it not being necessary under such circumstances that the order should be drawn on the owner. However, an order which is conditioned on the performance of some act by a third person is not sufficient to constitute an equitable assignment of the proceeds of a building contract. Thus in Commercial Nat. Bank v. Portland, 37 Ore. 33, 54 Pac. 814, 60 Pac. 563, the court adopted the rule as to equitable assignments as laid down in Christmas v. Russell, 81 U. S. 69, 20 U. S. (L. ed.) 762, as follows: "An agreement to pay out of a particular fund, however clear in its terms, is not an equitable assignment. A covenant in the most solemn form has no greater effect. The phraseology employed is not material, provided the intent to transfer is manifested. Such an intent and its execution are indispensable. The assignor must not retain any control over the fund--any authority to collect, or any power of revocation. If he do, it is fatal to the claim of the assignee. The transfer must be of such a character that the fund holder can safely pay, and is compellable to do so, though forbidden by the assignor. Where the transfer is of the character described, the fund holder is bound from the time of notice." The foregoing ...