Tortfeasor tortiously injured Victim in an auto accident. While Victim was recovering in Hospital, Tortfeasor's liability insurer, Insurer, settled with Victim for $ 5,000$. Victim gave Insurer a signed release and received a signed memorandum wherein Insurer promised to pay Victim $ 5,000$ by check within 30 days. When Victim left Hospital two days later, Hospital demanded payment of its $ 4,000$ stated bill. Victim thereupon gave Hospital his own negotiable promissory note for $ 4,000$, payable to Hospital's order in 30 days, and also, as security, assigned to Hospital the Insurer settlement memorandum. Hospital promptly assigned for value the settlement memorandum and negotiated the note to Holder, who took the note as a holder in due course. Subsequently, Victim misrepresented to Insurer that he had lost the settlement memorandum and needed another. Insurer issued another memorandum identical to the first, and Victim assigned it to $\mathrm{ABC}$ Furniture to secure a $ 5,000$ credit sale contract. $\mathrm{ABC}$ immediately notified Insurer of this assignment. Later it was discovered that Hospital had mistakenly overbilled Victim by the amount of $ 1,000$ and that Tortfeasor was an irresponsible minor. If Victim starts an action against Insurer 40 days after the insurance settlement agreement, can Victim recover?
A. Yes, because his attempted assignments of his claim against Insurer were ineffective, inasmuch as Insurer's promise to pay "by check" created a right in Victim that was too personal to assign.
B. No, because he no longer has possession of Insurer's written memorandum.
C. No, because Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility vitiated the settlement agreement between Victim and Insurer.
D. No, because he has made at least one effective assignment of his claim against Insurer, and Insurer has notice thereof.
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
D