clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 34   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

34 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
It is not of course denied, that courts of equity regard a
mortgage as mere security for the debt, however indefeasible the
title of the mortgagee may be at law, by the default of the mort-
gagor; and the court of appeals have said, that an assign-
ment of the debt, passes the mortgaged premises as appurte-
nant to the debt, and that they are incapable of a separate, and
independent alienation. Pratt vs. Vanwyck's Ex'rs. 6 G. &
J., 495.
And Chancellor Kent has decided that the debt cannot reside
in one person, and the pledge in another, the mortgagee can-
not convey his interest in the mortgage to a third person, ab-
solutely, or by way of mortgage, distinct from the debt it was
intended to secure. Jlymar vs. Beill et al, 5 Johns. Ch. Rep.
570.
The same doctrine was maintained in Souther-in et al vs.
Mendum, 5 New Hampshire, 430, where it was said that the
mortgage was merely an incident to the debt, which could not
be separated from its principal, and in Cutler vs. Haven, 8
Pick. 490, it was decided that when a mortgagee transfers to
another person the debt, secured by the mortgage, he ceases to
have any control over the latter.
The same principle is established by the case of Jackson vs.
Blodget, 5 Cowen, 202, when it was said that the assignment
of a bond secured by mortgage, carried the mortgage with it;
though the latter was not named in the assignment, for the
mortgage could not exist as an independent security in the
hands of one person, while the bond belonged to another, that
the debt (the evidence of which was the bond) is the principal,
the mortgage the accessory, and accessorium non ducit, sed
sequitur principals.
I take it, therefore, to be firmly established upon authority,
that the assignment of a debt secured by mortgage, carries the
latter with it, whether the mortgage is mentioned in the assign-
or not, and that consequently, in determining upon the rights
of these plaintiffs, they are to be regarded as the assignees of
the mortgage, executed to protect the acceptances held by them,
though they may not have known of its existence, when the
acceptances were taken by them.

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 34   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives