| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value | - Her argument rests on the general principle that because the security for a debt is a mere incident of the debt or obligation which it is given to secure (Hayward Lbr. & Inv. Co. v. Naslund (1932) 125 Cal.App. 34, 39 [13 P.2d 775]), the assignment of an interest in the security for a debt is a nullity in the absence of an assignment of the debt itself. (E.g., Kelley v. Upshaw (1952) 39 Cal.2d 17
|
