4

down a contrary doctrine, which however, is support to [the own-
send?]. 1 [Stir. Eq?]. 5476, 2 D 1233.A.

There are several cases, however, which hold that
no such priority on the assignor attaches to the note first
assigned, such that as the assignment impart no respon-
sibility nor undertaking for the payment of the debt by
the debter, it does not bind the assignor to relinquish
his own right in favor of the assignee, or entitle the lat-
ter to anything more than an apportionment of the se-
curities held in common for it, & another debt not
passed by the assignment. It follows, therefore, that a
subsequent assignee of the latter obligation, according
to these cases, will stand in the same position with the as-
signor, and be entitled to share in the benefit of all
securities originally given on account of both debts.
Belding v [Manly?] 21 [Vermt (6 Washb. 1550,?] [10 U.I. Dig. 330,
Mortg. 105]; Henderson v Herrod 10 [Sm Tm 631?] [8 U.I. Dig.
281, Mortg. 196]; Hevenson v Black, [Santive?] (NJI 338, [2 U.S.
Dig. 346, Mortg. 1184]; Betz v Hebner I Penn. 280, [Id. Mortge.
1190]; Durley v Hays 17 [Str.?] 400 {[@ White + Tadeis L.O 447]?]
Mohleis appeal 5 Barr 418 [Uid]. Mohleis appeal is
suppilied by Memi Hare + Wallace (notes to White + T.
L.C, [Whi supra?]), to have gone far to settle the law, in
form of appointment.

There are again, some cases ^ or at least one case, in which ^ it is held that
the notes are charged on the fund according to the
order of time in which they become due. State Bk
v Tweedy S Blackf. 447, [10 US. Dig. 331. Mntg. 112].

In the case under consideration, therefore I am
of opinion that the benefit of the mortgage lien
passed with the notes to the assignee, thereof, [illegible?]
in the order of the assignment, to that Bomden,
the ^1st assignee is entitled to priority of satisfac-
tion.

down a contrary doctrine, which however, is support to [the own-
send?]. 1 [Stir. Eq?]. 5476, 2 D 1233.A.

There are several cases, however, which hold that
no such priority on the assignor attaches to the note first
assigned, such that as the assignment impart no respon-
sibility nor undertaking for the payment of the debt by
the debter, it does not bind the assignor to relinquish
his own right in [form?] of the assignee, or entitle the let-
ter to anything more than an [appointment?] of the [se-
eirnties?] held in common for it, & another debt not
passed by the assignment. No follower therefore, that a
subsequent assignee of the latter obligation, [ascending?]
to these cases, will stand in the same [portion?] with the as-
signor, and be entitled to share in the benefit of all
[territories?] originally given on account ofboth debts.
Belding v [Manly?] 21 [Vermt (6 Washb. 1550,?] [10 U.I. Dig. 330,
Mortg. 105]; Henderson v Herrod 10 [Sm Tm 631?] [8 U.I. Dig.
281, Mortg. 196]; Hevenson v Black, [Santive?] (NJI 338, [2 U.S.
Dig. 346, Mortg. 1184]; Betz v Hebner I Penn. 280, [Id. Mortge.
1190]; Durley v Hays 17 [Str.?] 400 {[@ White + Tadeis L.O 447]?]
Mohleis appeal 5 Barr 418 [Uid]. Mohleis appeal is
suppilied by Memi Hare + Wallace (notes to White + T.
L.C, [Whi supra?]), to have gone far to settle the law, in
form of appointment.

There are again, some cases ^ or at least one case, in which ^ it is held that
the notes are charged on the fund according to the
order of time in which they [happen?] due. State Bk
v Tweedy S Blackf. 447, [10 US. Dig. 331. Mntg. 112].

In the case under consideration, therefore I am
of opinion that the benefit of the mortgage lieu
passed with the notes to the assignee, therefore, [spot?]
in the order of the assignment, to that Bomden,
the ^1st assignee is entitled to priority of satisfac-
tion.