United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Lord Shand—I am of the same opinion.

Lord Davey—I concur.

Lord Brampton—I am of the same opinion.

Lord Robertson—It is conceded by the appellant that the contract out of which this claim arises was not assignable. The principle that contracts involving delectus personæ are not assignable is well rooted in Scots law as well as in the law of other countries. It may, however, be conceded to the appellant that it does not necessarily follow from this that a right may not arise out of an unassignable contract which is itself assignable. I prefer in a Scotch case to call such a right jus crediti rather than chose-in-action. The simplest case would be that of a money payment pure and simple which has accrued. Even in the case of such a claim, the assignee, while of course entitled to sue in his own name, is liable to all the answers which could have been made to his cedent. But the questions arising in the present case are, first, whether this claim for £500 of damages is such a money claim pure and simple, and second, whether it has been assigned. Now, the second of these questions seems to me so clear that I do not dwell on the first further than to say that after what has been said the appellant must not consider it as clear. But on the second of these questions I do not find any assignation of debt or damages. It is quite true that the law does not require technical words in an assignation. But here the only thing assigned in the body of the assignation is concessions, and even if this word be amplified by the schedule, then “contracts and concessions” are assigned. Now, at the date of this assignation the claim now sued on had already accrued, and on the theory of the appeal it was a claim separable from the contract. I find it impossible to read this as an assignation of a pecuniary claim. It is at best an assignation of the contract as a whole, and it is in my opinion impossible to apply it to the present claim.