178 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

stated, according to my construction of the act of 1834, even
such an expectation on the part of the grantor, would not viti-
ate the deed, unless it likewise preferred one creditor to the
others, and as this deed makes no such preference, I am of
opinion, the complainant cannot have relief against it, and that
his bill must be dismissed.

[No appeal was taken from this decree.]

PEARSCW CLARK

vs. DECEMBER TERM, 1847.
LEVERING ET AL. 3

[MORTGAGE—ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE DEBT.]

A BILL of sale, though absolute in its terms, is, in equity, considered as a mort-
gage wherever the object is to secure the payment of a debt, and not to trans-
fer the title absolutely to the party to whom the conveyance is made.

Whoever may be the holder of the debt intended to be secured by the mortgage,
will be considered, in equity, as the owner of the mortgage itself.

The debt and the mortgage are so inseparably united, the one being, in truth,
appurtenant to the other, that a separate and independent alienation of them
cannot be made.

[In February, 1846, Pearson dark, the complainant, pur-
chased of William Applegarth, a schooner, called the "Emily
Ann," for the sum of $2100, and gave in payment, an old ves-
sel valued at $500, and three drafts in favor of the vendor,
drawn by said dark, and accepted by the firm of Whittington
& Snyder for his accommodation. To indemnify the said
firm against any loss by reason of their acceptances, the
schooner was conveyed to them by a bill of sale from Apple-
garth, with the understanding that they were to convey it to
dark, on payment of the draft by him. Clark failed to make
any payments on these drafts, other than a small one of about
a hundred dollars; and the residue of the first two, except
$350 was paid by the acceptors. For this balance of $350,