123 Mass. 58 | Mass. | 1877
On April 1, 1870, the plaintiff Morris made a promissory note for the sum of $4000, payable to the order of Abraham Jackson in five years from that date, and executed a mortgage at the same time of certain land in Boston to Jackson, to secure the payment of the note, and delivered both note and mortgage to Jackson, who caused the mortgage to be recorded on April 5, 1870. On or about October 21, 1872, Jackson indorsed the note to the Tremont National Bank as collateral security for a loan to a larger amount, made at that time by the bank to him, stating at the time that the note, which upon its face purported to be secured by mortgage, carried the mortgage with it.
This was the condition of the title to the note and mortgage on or about March 2, 1875. The plaintiff bank was owner of the note, and Jackson had the legal title to the mortgage in trust for the bank. On that day Jackson undertook to sell the note, with its security, to the defendant. He had, however, neither the title, nor the possession of the note, nor any authority to sell the same. He could therefore convey no title to it. In order to seem to have a title which he could convey, he fraudulently substituted another note for the note which the mortgage was
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the note held by the defendant is a genuine note, the case finds that it is not the note which the mortgage was given to secure; and the plaintiff Morris has never created a lien upon his estate in favor of that debt, and it cannot be contended that Jackson could by any act of his create such a lien. If the holder of the true note had in fact consented that the mortgage might be assigned to the defendant as collateral security for another note of the same tenor and date, that could not have made it so. Whether in equity it might have operated as a conveyance of the true debt to the defendant we need not decide, for there is no claim or pretence that such holder did thus consent. There was simply neglect on the part of the plaintiff bank to take an assignment of the mortgage. The utmost hazard which the holder took was that Jackson might discharge the mortgage, in which case the note would still be a valid security; or Jackson might pass the legal title to another, who in law would become the trustee of the-owner of the note.