by John Marshall Harlan

Summary

by John Marshall Harlan Matthews v. Warner (145 U.S. 475…

He knew that Warner and Smith, in behalf of Upham and his creditors, claimed to hold the mortgage and bond of 1875 as security for the debts of Nathan, and that such debts were none the less Nathan's because his own name was upon the notes, or some of them, representing those debts. He induced the trustees to surrender the mortgage, and take in place of it certain railroad bonds and a promissory note, which, he agreed, should be collateral security for the claims then held by Warner and Smith against Nathan Matthews.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan Matthews v. Warner (145 U.S. 475…

He held securities for the debts due for money loaned by him to Nathan, and the latter, in order to get possession of those securities, offered to his creditor the mortgage given by Edward to him. If Upham had taken an assignment of the bond and mortgage, with knowledge or notice that his assignor could use them only as collateral security for loans made to the mortgagor by the mortgagee, such assignment would have been of no value to him, after such loans were extinguished by payment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature