180 HI6H COURT OF CHANCERY.

of those bills must consequently, in a court of equity, be regard-
ed as the mortgagees. The principle settled by the authorities
appears to be this: that 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; that the debt can-
not reside in one person, and the pledge in another; the former
(the debt) being the principal, and the latter the accessory; and
that, consequently, in whatsoever hands the debt is found, in
the same hands will the mortgage also be found; that 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. Jackson vs. Blodget, 5
Cowan, 202; Green vs. Hart, 1 Johns. Rep., 580; Jackson
vs. Hart, 3 Johns' Cases, 322; Pratt vs. Vanwick's ea-'rs, 6 0.
& J., 495.

It has been decided in Massachusetts, that where a negotia-
ble note secured by mortgage, was negotiated without assign-
ment of the mortgage, notwithstanding such separation of the
note from the mortgage, the latter remained in force, and the
mortgagee became a trustee for the holder of the note. Crane
vs. March, 4 Pick; 131.

But, it is said that Whittington & Snyder having accepted
these bills solely for the accommodation of the complainant,
and having made payments on account of them out of their
own moneys, justice requires that they should at least be put
on a footing of equality with the holders of the bills, and be
paid rateably with them, out of the proceeds of sales, those pro-
ceeds being insufficient to pay the whole sum. *

The effect of this would be, to put the general creditors of
Whittington & Snyder, represented by their assignees, upon
an equal footing with the holders of the bills.

But, why should this be so ? It is true, these parties did ac-
cept these bills for the accommodation of the complainant,
dark; but it is equally true, they did mean to put themselves,
and did put themselves, between the holders of the bills and
loss. In truth, with reference to the holders of these bills,
Whittington & Snyder as the acceptors became the principal