An assignee has all the rights, power, and authority of the assignor necessary to fully execute the trust, to demand and sue for any property belonging to the estate, and to execute valid receipts. The assignee, by deed duly acknowledged by the assignee, in the assignee's own name, may convey any of the estate, real and personal, subject to approval as stated in section 6-10-116. Where the assignee has been appointed by the court in place of an assignee removed, it is the assignee's duty to compel by suit, or the peremptory order of the court, the delivery of the trust estate and the property, or the value thereof, that has been wasted or misapplied by the previous assignee.
Source: L. 1897: p. 98, § 16. R.S. 08: § 192. C.L. § 6259. CSA: C. 12, § 19. CRS 53: § 11-1-19. C.R.S. 1963: § 11-1-19. L. 2026: Entire section amended, (HB 26-1426), ch. 334, p. 2010, § 52, effective August 12.
ANNOTATION
Annotator's note. Cases material to § 6-10-119 decided prior to its earliest source, L. 1897, p. 98, § 16, have been included in the annotations to this section.
The assignee stands in the shoes of his assignor, and whatever claim in respect to the property one might have against the latter, can also be asserted against the former. Taub v. McClelland-Colt Comm'n Co., 10 Colo. App. 190, 51 P. 168 (1897).
The authority of the assignee is derived from the statute and not from the instrument of assignment. Falk v. Liebes, 6 Colo. App. 473, 42 P. 46 (1895).
Therefore, the powers which an assignor may assume to grant by his deed are without effect; if they are in accord with those conferred by the statute, they are superfluous, if not, they are void. Falk v. Liebes, 6 Colo. App. 473, 42 P. 46 (1895).
Whenever an estate passes to an assignee for distribution among creditors, the assignee is not obligated to accept assets which will prove onerous to the estate and a burden rather than an asset. Hill v. Graham, 11 Colo. App. 536, 53 P. 1060 (1898).
Creditors may compel assignee to pursue course, as to property, for best interest of all. If the assignee should attempt to accept assets which would prove a burden rather than an advantage, the creditors would not be without remedy and they might apply to the court having original jurisdiction in the matter to compel him to take the course which was for the best interests of the creditors generally. Hill v. Graham, 11 Colo. App. 536, 53 P. 1060 (1898).
The assignee is the only person after the assignment who can attack the validity of a chattel mortgage. Clark v. Bright, 30 Colo. 199, 69 P. 506 (1902).
At common law an assignee took only that interest which the debtor had at the time of the assignment. From this it follows that property previously conveyed, though in fraud of creditors, did not pass, and the creditors, not the assignee, were the ones to sue to set it aside. Wells v. Schuster-Hax Nat'l Bank, 23 Colo. 534, 48 P. 809 (1897).