Cohn

This is an appeal on the judgment-roll alone. The complaint was in two counts, an open book account and account stated, and alleged that prior to the commencement of the action Bullock and Jones, for a valuable consideration, assigned to plaintiff all their right, title and interest to said claim, and that plaintiff is now the owner and holder thereof. Judgment was awarded to the plaintiff against defendant Howard Glover Thompson, who presents this appeal. Findings were made that the following allegations in the amendment to the answer were true: "II. That the said David W. Cohn is not an attorney-at-law, and is not admitted to practice law in the state of California. IV. That the said claim described in the said complaint against the defendants was assigned by Bullock and Jones, a corporation, to plaintiff herein, and that under and by virtue of the contract of assignment of said account by Bullock and Jones, a corporation, to the plaintiff, David W. Cohn, it was contracted and agreed by and between the said plaintiff and the said Bullock and Jones, in consideration of said assignment, that the plaintiff would endeavor to collect the account described in the complaint from the…

I concur in the opinion of Judge McLucas, but I think the record discloses an additional reason for affirming the judgment. [5] This appeal being presented on the judgment-roll only, the findings are conclusive *Page 791 upon us as to the facts. One of those findings is that the claim sued on "was assigned" to the plaintiff. This imports a completed assignment (including, if it was in writing, the signature and delivery of the writing), by which the title to the claim assigned passed to the plaintiff. (3 Cal. Jur. 233, 234; Burkett v. Doty, 176 Cal. 89 , 92 [ 167 P. 518 ]; Curtin v. Kowalsky, 145 Cal. 431 , 434, 435 [ 78 P. 962 ].) The remainder of this finding states that by the contract of assignment plaintiff agreed to do certain things. [6] Conceding, for the purpose of argument, that this agreement was illegal, yet it amounts to nothing more than the consideration for which the assignment was made. A completed assignment is an executed contract, to which the rule regarding illegality of consideration does not apply. ( Burkett v. Doty, supra; Curtin v. Kowalsky, supra; Ripperdan v. Weldy, 149 Cal. 667 , 676 [ 87 P. 276 ].) It is no less effective as a transfer of title because…