Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/328

 purchased by the debtor before notice of the assignment of the claim against the debtor, is unaffected by the assignment, although the assignment is made before the right of set off accrues to the debtor. Natchez v. Minor, 9 Smedes & M. 544; Lockwood v. Bates, 1 Del. Ch. 435; Bank v. Balliet, 8 Watts & S. 311; Martin v. Wells, Fargo & Co's Express, (Ariz.) 28 Pac. Rep. 958. The statute only embodies a well established doctrine of the common law.

That defendant, Sullivan, had actual notice of the equitable assignment of the cause of action against him on the undertaking to Voss before he (Sullivan) purchased the set off, is not pretended. It only remains to be considered whether the entry of the lien in the judgment docket constituted notice to him, When we examine the statute, we find that it limits to the judgment debtor the effect of this entry as notice. It says that by this entry the lien is made effective against the judgment debtor. It is apparent that the statute does not mean that any lien is created against the judgment debtor, or against his property, but merely that the entry of the notice constitutes notice to him, so that he cannot thereafter disregard the interests of the attorney in the moneys which he (the debtor) owes the client The legislature has so restricted the operation of this entry of notice that only the judgment debtor is affected by it. His surety on an appeal undertaking is not within the statute. The attorney can protect himself by giving such surcey actual notice of his lien, and from that moment the surety pays the client, or purchases a set off against him, subject to the attorney's rights. The case of Hroch v. Aultman & Taylor Co., (S. D.) 54 N. W. Rep. 269, has been cited to support the priority of the attorney in the case. But in that case the right of set off was held by the court not to be absolute, as in the case at bar. Here the defendant is relying upon a legal set off which he purchased against the plaintiff's cause of action against him, without notice that an equitable assignment of the defendants claim had been made to the attorney, whereas in that case the court was dealing with the question