
    Merrimack,
    Feb. 1, 1921.
    New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. v. James Thompson & a.
    
    An assignment given to secure a surety of the assignor against liability is valid without notice to the assignor’s debtor as against a subsequent attaching creditor of the assignor.
    Bill of Interpleader. The plaintiffs were indebted to the defendant Smith on January 20, 1917, in the sum of $2,800, and on that date Smith assigned his claim to the defendant Thompson to secure him as surety on notes made by Smith, aggregating $3,500. October 30,1917, the defendants Fellows & Son sued Smith and summoned the plaintiffs as trustees. Later, the plaintiffs were notified of the assignment and filed this petition malting Smith, Thompson and Fellows & Son, defendants. Transferred by Sawyer, J., on Fellows & Son's exception to a decree for Thompson, from the April term, 1920, of the superior court.
    
      
      Stevens, Couch & Stevens, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Nathaniel E. Martin, for Thompson, was not called upon.
    
      Branch & Branch {Mr. Randolph W. Branch orally), for Fellows & Son.
   Young, J.

The question raised by Fellows & Son’s exception is whether Thompson is entitled to hold, as security for signing Smith’s notes, the money in the plaintiffs’ hands, and not, as they contend, what Thompson could recover from Smith.

In other words, the question and the only question for the court is whether the assignment is valid. It is conceded that it (1) was made in good faith, (2) has a sufficient consideration to sustain it and (3) that the money in the plaintiffs’ hands is insufficient to save Thompson from loss, if he is compelled to pay all the notes he endorsed. It must be held, therefore, that the assignment is valid, for the mere fact the plaintiffs were not notified of the assignment until after they were summoned as trustees does not render the assignment invalid as to Fellows & Son. Marsh v. Garney, 69 N. H. 236.

Fellows & Son’s exception overruled.

All concurred.  