Assignment of contractual benefit was held inoperative where made to defeat insolvency law and creditors' claims.

The benefit of a contract for the purchase of goods may be assignable where it is not tied to personal obligations, and the right to call for delivery on payment can amount to a transferable beneficial interest in movables. However, an assignment made by an insolvent for nominal consideration to place assets beyond creditors' reach and prevent vesting in the Official Assignee was treated as made for an unlawful object and was therefore inoperative. As the assignment failed, the beneficial interest remained with the insolvent and vested in the Official Assignee, while the plaintiff also failed to show sufficient readiness and willingness to accept delivery on the required terms. The suit accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of the contract for sale of goods was assignable, and whether the assignment was void and inoperative as having been made to defeat the provisions of the insolvency law.

Analysis: The benefit of a contract for the purchase of goods may be assigned where it is not coupled with a personal obligation or dependent on personal considerations, and the right to call for delivery on payment may amount to a beneficial interest in movable property capable of assignment. However, an assignment made when the assignor was insolvent, for a nominal consideration, with the object of placing assets beyond the reach of creditors and preventing them from vesting in the Official Assignee, was treated as having an unlawful object. Such a transfer falls within the prohibition against transfers for an object that would defeat the provisions of law, and is therefore inoperative. Once the assignment failed, the beneficial interest remained with the insolvent and vested in the Official Assignee on insolvency, but no effective steps were taken by the Official Assignee to enforce the contract. The plaintiff also failed to establish sufficient readiness and willingness to accept delivery on the terms required.

Conclusion: The assignment could not support the plaintiff's claim, and the suit failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of contractual benefit made with the purpose of defeating insolvency law is void and inoperative as an assignment for an unlawful object, and no suit on such assignment can succeed unless the enforceable right has been validly brought home by the proper person entitled to claim it.

---