1

Nov. 24, 1833.
Benefit of lieu to assigned of part of debt.
Case started by Mr JW. Hutcheson of
Anderson
The case is this. Bass sold Phillips a tract of land
for $2300, for which he took two notes, on for $1300, ^ due [Jan.?] 1833, & the other
for $1000, due [Jan.?] 1836, with a mortage on the land to secure
the payments.

One [Bomdon?] became the assignee from Bass
of the $1500 note, & subsequently the note for $1000
was assigned to one [Ineen?], who avened showed that at
the time he traded for, Bass showed him the mortgage
by which it was secured, as an indicement to his to do-
ing.

The questions are

1. [Another?] assigneer of the notes entitled to the bene-
fit of the mortgage lieu, as of course?
2. ^ If so, are they entitled in the order of priority of assignment, ^ or pro [rata?], or in the order of the time of payment?

1. A to the first question, no draft I [rappered] or law
be entertained, that the debt in the principal thing, & the
mortgage a mere incident thereto, which therefore passes
always to the assignee of the debt, at least if there is no
[otipulation?] to the contrary. 1 dern. Dig. 33.5 - 6.533, 34; [lnatch-
miyo] v Rigland 1 Runo. 466; ^ Schofield v Cox Senah 533; Ragsdale v Hagg [qluab?]. 427;
Dryden v [Fril?] 3 Mylne & Craig 670; Whittemore v [Knibb?] 4 Foster
(NH). 484 {14 K.I Dig 444. Mortgage. 181}; Center v PLM BK
22 743. [Thid?] 186]; Phillips v BK of Levistowne 18 Penn.
[(Harris)?], 394 , [13 M.S Dig. 496 Mortgage 238]; Miller v Hoyles
[6 ked.?] eg. 269; [10 [UW?] Dig. 43, Assignment 27]; Keyes v Wood
21 Vernt (6 Washb.) 3.31 [10 K.S. Dig. 330, Mortgages. 103]; Bur-