Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-632-Transfer-of-part-of-debt.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:14:56+00:00

Document:
The principle that an assignment of the debt involves an assignment of the mortgage security applies in the case of an assignment of a part only of the debt, which is usually effected by a transfer of one of several notes or bonds evidencing the debt, and in such cases the assignee is ordinarily entitled to share in the benefit of the mortgage security.20 Difficult questions, however, arise as between the assignor and his assignee, and between different assignees of parts of the debt secured, as regards the application of the mortgaged property or its proceeds in case it is insufficient in value to satisfy the entire debt.
(Mass.) 165; Pierce v. Faunce, 47 We. 507.
17. See Greene v. Warnick, 64 N. Y. 220; Potter v. Stransky, 48 Wis. 235, 4 N. W. 95; Wiley v. Williamson, 68 Me. 71.
18. Martinez v. Lindsey, 91 Ala. 334, 8 So. 787; Moore's Appeal, 7 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 298; Converse v Michigan Dairy Co., 45 Fed. 18; Cutler v. Clementson, 67 Fed. 409 (semble).
19. Citizen's State Bank of Noblesville v. Julian, 153 Ind. 655, 55 N. E. 1007; Swift v. Edson, 5 Conn. 531; Hasselman v. Yandes, Wils. (Ind.) 276; Gillian v. Mc-Dowall, 66 Neb. 814, 92 N. W.
991; Merrill v. Luce, 6 S. D. 354, 55 Am. St. Rep. 844, 61 N. W. 43.
20. Phelan v. Olney, 6 Cal 478; Smith v. Stevens, 49 Conn. 181: Sargent v. Howe, 21 111. 148; Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346; Anderson v. Baumgart-ner, 27 Mo. 80; Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. McCargur, 20 Neb. 500, 30 N. W. 686; Page v. Pierce, 26 N. H. 317; Miller v. Campbell Commission Co., 13 Okla. 75, 74 Pac. 507; Patrick's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 356; Muller v. Waddington, 5 S C. 342; Miller v. Rutland & W. R. Co., 40 Vt. 399, 94 Am. Dec 414.
If the transferor, in making the transfer of part of the debt, makes himself expressly liable, by guaran21. McVay v. Bloodgood, 9 Port. (Ala.) 547; Ellis v. Lammie, 42 Mo. 153; Bank of England v. Tarleton, 23 Miss. 173.
31 N. J. Eq. 229, 34 Id. 252; Pat-tison v. Hull, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 747; McLean's Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 255; Rolston v. Brockway, 23 Wis. 407. 23. Noyes v. White, 9 Kan. 640; Chew v. Buchanan, 30 Md. 367; Bryant v. Damon. 6 Gray (Mass.) 504; Foley v. Rose, 123 Mass. 557; Solberg v. Wright, 33 Minn. 224, 22 N. W. 381; Langdon v Keith, 9 Vt. 300; Miller v. Washington Saw Bank, 5 Wash. 200, 31 Pac. 712. But see Henderson v. Herrod, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.) C31, 49 Am. Dec. 41.
24. Dixon v. Clayville, 44 Md. 573; Whitehead v. Morrill, 108 N. C. 65, 12 S. E. 894; Fourth Nat. Bank's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 473, 1G Am. St. Rep. 538, 16 Atl. 779; Donley v. Hays, 17 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 400; Cannon v. McDaniel. 4G Tex. 303.
25. See Mohler's Appeal, 5 Pa. 418; Dixon v. Clayville, 44 Md. 573.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.