Carpenter v. Longan (1872)

-

 Carpenter v. Longan (1872) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that established important principles regarding mortgages, promissory notes, and the inseparability of the two. The case is significant in the context of real estate and financial law.

Case Citation

Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271 (1872)

Facts of the Case

  • The case involved a dispute over the enforcement of a mortgage.
  • Background:
    • Longan, the plaintiff, had sold land to an individual named Chase. In exchange, Chase executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the land.
    • Chase later sold the property to Carpenter, the defendant, without paying off the mortgage. Carpenter sought to avoid the mortgage obligations.

Legal Issues

  1. Inseparability of the Note and Mortgage:
    The key question was whether the mortgage could be enforced separately from the promissory note it secured.

  2. Transfer of the Note:
    The Court examined whether the transfer of the promissory note to a third party automatically carried with it the associated mortgage.

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Longan and established the following key principles:

  1. Inseparability of the Mortgage and Note:
    The Court held that the mortgage and the promissory note it secures are inseparable. The mortgage is an incident to the note, meaning it has no legal existence independent of the debt it secures. If the note is invalid, the mortgage is also invalid.

  2. Transfer of the Note Includes the Mortgage:
    The Court ruled that the assignment or transfer of the promissory note automatically transfers the associated mortgage to the assignee. This means that whoever holds the note also holds the right to enforce the mortgage.

Key Legal Principles

  1. The Mortgage Follows the Note:
    A mortgage is considered an accessory to the note. It cannot exist independently and is unenforceable if the underlying debt (the note) is invalid or has been satisfied.

  2. Holder in Due Course:
    A bona fide purchaser of the promissory note (holder in due course) has the right to enforce the mortgage, provided the note was acquired in good faith and for value.

Impact and Significance

  1. Unified Doctrine of Mortgage and Note:
    Carpenter v. Longan established that a mortgage cannot be separated from the debt it secures. This principle remains a cornerstone of mortgage and real estate law.

  2. Protection of Lenders:
    The decision provides clarity and protection for lenders and holders of promissory notes, ensuring that the security interest (mortgage) travels with the note.

  3. Challenging Foreclosures:
    Borrowers often reference Carpenter v. Longan in foreclosure disputes to argue that if the note is invalid or improperly assigned, the associated mortgage is also unenforceable.

Relevance to Modern Legal Context

Carpenter v. Longan continues to be cited in cases involving:

  • Mortgage assignments and securitization.
  • Challenges to foreclosures when borrowers question the ownership of the note.
  • Situations where lenders attempt to enforce mortgages without proper documentation of the note.

This decision underscores the importance of properly maintaining and transferring promissory notes in any transaction involving secured debt. If there is any break in the chain of ownership or invalidity of the note, the mortgage becomes unenforceable.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more