
    Richard J. Williams and Edward Manogue, Composing the Firm of Williams & Manogue, Claimants, Appellants, v. The State of New York, Respondent.
    
      Assignment by a contractor with the State of a portion of the contract price to a subcontractor— duty of the State after notice thereof—chapter 755 of the Laws of 1900 is simply a waiver by the State of its right not to be sued.
    
    Where one Trull, who had taken a contract to perform certain work for the State of New York for the sum of §76,000, enters into a contract with the firm of Williams & Hanogue for the performance of certain of the work embraced in the original contract for the sum of. §23,300, and executes to said firm a written assignment of all his right, title and interest to moneys due him and to grow due on said original contract to the extent of §23,300, “the engineer in charge of said contract work to allow as said moneys "become due such payment ,to the said Williams & Manogue as the work so done by them may call for up to the time of such allowance,” it is the duty of the State, upon receiving notice of the assignment, to pay the full sum of §23,300 to the firm of Williams & Manogue instead of to Fruh, as fast as it is earned by Fruh or on his account, according to the terms of the contract.
    A payment hy the State, after receiving notice of the written assignment", of any part of the §23,300, is unwarranted and does not discharge the State from liaahility to the firm of Williams & Manogue.
    Chapter 755 of the Laws of 1900, relating to the Court of Claims, is nothing more than a waiver hy the State of its fights as sovereign to decline to answer in its own courts, and an authority'to the Court of Claims to award judgment against it upon any state of facts that would warrant a recovery, were the claim against a citizen of the State.
    Appeal, by the claimants, Richard J. Williams and another, composing the firm of Williams & Manogue, from a judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 15th day of September, 1903, dismissing the claim filed by the claimants in the above-entitled action.
    On the 25th day of September, 1897, the board of managers of the Long Island State Hospital made a contract with one George Fruli in consideration of $76,900, which had been appropriated by the State for that purpose, for the heating, ventilating and hot. water supply of the cottages connected with' said hospital. The plans and specifications were prepared by the State Architect and approved by the State Commission in Lunacy. ’Shortly after and on September twenty-eighth Fruh entered into a written contract with the claimants, by the terms of which the claimants agreed to perform certain of the work and furnish certain of the materials called for by said plans and specifications for the sum of $23,300. On the same day Fruh made a written assignment to the claimants of all his right, title and interest to moneys due him and to grow due on said original contract to the extent of $23,300, “ the engineer in charge of said contract work to allow as said moneys become due such payment to the said Williams & Manogue as the work so done' by them may call for up to the time of such allowance.” This assignment was filed the same day it was executed with the treasurer of the board of managers in the office where the treasurer’s records were kept and an abstract thereof was entered in a book kept in said office, which the law provided should be kept for such purposes. The date of filing was indorsed on the assignment, which remained in the office until after the claimants had completed their work. A copy of the assignment was on the same day mailed to the State Architect and duly received by him.. A copy of the sub-contract between Fruh and the claimants was also filed with said treasurer shortly after the filing of the assignment.
    Subsequently, upon the completion of the whole work, a balance of $2,194.57 was still unpaid to the claimants, and Fruh having become insolvent and the State refusing to pay this balance, a claim for the same was presented against the State to the Court of Claims, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 755 of the Laws of 1900.. Such court rendered judgment dismissing the claim, and from that judgment this appeal is taken.
    
      John T. Norton, for the appellants.
    
      John Cunneen, Attorney-General, and 8. 8. Taylor, for the respondent.
   Parker, P. J.:

It must be conceded that the assignment by Fruh to the claims ants of an interest in his contract with the State, to the extent of - $23,300, was a valid assignment, and, as between the claimants and Fruh, could have been enforced by them against him, so fast as they earned the amounts which such assignment was made to secure. (Brace v. City of Gloversville, 167 N. Y. 452, 457; Hackett v. Campbell, 10 App. Div. 523; affd., 159 N. Y. 537.)

It must also be conceded that the fact of this assignment, to the extent of $23,300, was known to the State. The facts appearing in the record before us clearly show that. It became the duty of the State, therefore, to pay that full snm of $23,300 to the claimants, instead of to Fruh, as fast as it was earned by Fruh or on his account, according to the terms of his contract. After such notice, payment of any part of such amount to Fruh would not be warranted. (Brill v. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 454; Lauer v. Dunn, 115 id. 405 ; Bates v. Salt Springs Nat. Bank, 157 id. 322, 327.)

It appears from the record before us that all the work and materials which Fruh undertook to perform and furnish under his contract were performed and furnished by the 8th day of October, 1899, and that the claimants had by such date fully performed and furnished so much thereof as they had undertaken to do and furnish. Also that the State, up to that date, had paid to the claimants, by reason of the assignment by Fruh to them, all of the $23,300 except the sum of' $2,194.57. That amount the State had paid to Fruh, instead of to the claimants.

The whole work under Fruh’s contract having then been fully performed and accepted by the State, and the whole contract price thereof having been fully earned, I can discover no reason why the State should not pay to these claimants the full amount that Fruh so assigned to them. The case seems to be reduced to that single and very simple proposition of law: It is no defense to a debtor who had notice of such an assignment that he had paid a portion of the assigned amount to the assignor.

The act of May 4, 1900 (Chap. 755), under which this claim is presented to the Court of Claims, I consider to be nothing more than a waiver by the State of its rights as sovereign to decline to answer in its own courts, and as an authority to such Court of Claims to award judgment against it upon any state of facts that would warrant a recovery were the claim against a citizen of the State. Nothing more was intended by such act, and nothing more is necessary to sustain this claim against the State. I am of the opinion that the decision of the Court of Claims should be reversed, and inasmuch as there is no dispute whatever over the amount for which the State is liable, if it is liable at all, that judgment should be now directed against the State and in favor of the claimants for the sum of $2,194.57, and interest thereon since October 8,1899. ( Waller v. State, 144 N. Y. 579,601.) ,

All concurred.

Judgment reversed on law and facts, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of the claimants against the State for $2,194.57, with interest thereon from October 8, 1899. ' ,  