This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Caristo (D) subcontracted with Kroo to do painting. The subcontract contained the following provision: The assignment by the second party (Kroo) of this contract or any interests therein, or of any money due or to become due by reason of the terms hereof without the written consent of the first party [Caristo] shall be void. Kroo assigned the rights including monies due and to become due to a third company which in turn assigned them to Allhusen (P). P sought to recover on the assignment, but D contended that the contract prohibition against assignments must be given effect.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.