ASSIGNMENT, contracts. In common parlance this word signifies the transfer
of all kinds of property, real, personal, and mixed, and whether the same be
in possession or in action; as, a general assignment. In a more technical
sense it Is usually applied to the transfer of a term for years; but it is
more properly used to signify a transfer of some particular estate or
interest in lands.
2. The proper technical words of an assignment are, assign, transfer, and set over; but the words grant, bargain, and sell, or any other words which will show the intent of the parties to make a complete transfer, will amount to an assignment.
3. A chose in action cannot be assigned at law, though it may be done in equity; but the assignee takes it subject to all the equity to which it was liable in the hands of the original party. 2 John. Ch. Rep. 443, and the cases there cited. 2 Wash. Rep. 233.
4. The deed by which an assignment is made,, is also called an assignment. Vide, generally, Com. Dig.; Bac. Ab. Vin. Ab.; Nelson's Ab.; Civ. Code of Louis. art. 2612. In relation to general assignments, see Angell on Assignments, passim; 1 Hate & Wall. Sel. Dec. 78- 85.
5. By an assignment of a right all the accessories which belong to it, will pass with it as, if the assignor of a bond had collateral security, or a lien on property, the collateral security and the lien will pass with the assignment of the bond. 2 Penn. 361; 3 Bibb, 291; 4 B. Munroe, 529; 2 Drev. n. 218; 1 P. St. R. 454. 6. The assignment of a thing also carries with it all that belongs to it by right of accession; if, therefore, the thing produce interest or rent, the interest or the arrearages of the rent since the assignment, will belong to the assignee. 7 John. Cas. 90 6 Pick. 360.
Mistake in sending offer If an intermediary, such as a telegraph company, errs in the transmission of an offer, most courts hold that the party who selected that method of communication is bound by the terms of the erroneous message. The same rule applies to acceptances. In reaching this result, courts regard the telegraph company as the agent of the party who selected it. Other courts justify the rule on business convenience. A few courts rule that if there is an error in transmission, there is no contract, on the grounds that either the telegraph company is an Independent Contractor and not the sender's agent, or there has been no meeting of the minds of the parties. However, an offeree who knows, or should know, of the mistake in the transmission of an offer may not take advantage of the known mistake by accepting the offer; he or she will be bound by the original terms of the offer.