This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
In spite of occasional statements to the contrary,56 a transfer of the mortgagee's rights is unquestionably valid, although not supported by a valuable consideration.57 One has as much right to make a gift of a personal claim in his favor secured by mortgage as he has to make a gift of any other property. The absence of consideration will, however, affect the transferee's standing as a bona fide purchaser for value.58 And the lack of consideration may preclude equity from giving effect to an intended assignment which lacks the proper legal formalities.59
That the consideration for the transfer was less than the amount of the debt secured does not affect the right of the assignee to assert a claim for the full amount.60
54. Ante, Sec. 463.
55. In the English cases the validity of a gift without acceptance is sometimes based on the presumption of acceptance. See London and County Banking Co. v. London & River Plate Bank, 21 Q. B. D. 535, 542; Mallott v. Wilson (1903) 2 Ch. 494, 501, while sometimes it is merely said that acceptance is not necessary. See Standing v. Bowring, 31 Ch. D. 282.
56. See Ambrose v. Drew, 139 Cal. 665, 73 Pac. 543; Longfellow v. Barnard, 58 Neb. 612, 76 Am. St. Rep. 117, 79 N. W. 255; Parker v. Thomas, 126 Mich. 691, 86
N. W. 129; and 27 Cyclopedia Law & Proc. 1284.
57. Farrell v. Lewis, 56 Conn. 280, 14 Atl. 931; Croft v. Bunster, 9 Wis. 503; Loney v. Courtnay, 24 Neb. 580, 39 N. W. 616; Dyer v. Dean, 69 Vt. 370, 37 Atl. 1113.
58. Chancellor v. Bell, 45 N. J. Eq. 538, 17 Atl. 684; Twitchell v. McMurtrie, 77 Pa. St. 383.
59. Harriman, Contracts, Sec. 383.
60. Johnson v. Beard, 93 Ala. 96, 9 So. 535; Pease v. Benson, 28 Me. 336; Urann v. Coates, 117 Mass. 41; Loney v. Courtnay, 24 Neb. 580, 39 N. W. 616; Donning-ton v. Meeker, 11 N. J. Eq. 362 (semble); Morris v. Tuthill, 72