1. See Morgan v. Morgan, 10 Ga. 297; Sloan v. Graham, 85 Ill. 26; Castner v. Walrod, 83 Ill. 171; Kane v. Herrington, 50 Ill. 239; Manning v. Warren, 17 Ill. 267: Clay v. Clay, 7 Bush (Ky.), 95; Bank of United States v. Dallam, 4 Dana (Ky.), 574: Fenwick v. Macey, 1 Dana (Ky.), 276; Thomas v. White, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 177; Smith v. Carney, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 295; Ashley v. Denton, I Litt. (Ky.) 86; Frame v. Kenny, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 145; s. c., 12 Am. Dec. 367; Breckenridge v. Churchill, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 12; Brunk v. Means, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 214; Rodgers v. Moore, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401; Ayres v. Waite, 64 Mass. (10 Cush.) 72; Ayer v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 97; McCleane v. Shepherd, 21 N. J. Eq. (6 C. E. Gr.) 76; Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 90; s c., II Am. Dec. 417; Livingston v. Livingston, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 287; s. c., 8 Am. Dec. 362; Neely's Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 387; Shelby v. Shelby, Cooke (Tenn.), 179; s. c., 5 Am. Dec. 686; Cocke v. McGinnis, 1 Mart. & Yerg. (Tenn.) 361; s. c., 17 Am. Dec. 809; Pitzer v. Burns, 7 W. Va. 63, 69; Carroll v. Green, 92 U. S. (2 Otto) 509; bk. 23. L. ed. 738; Wagner v. Baird, 48 U. S. (7 How.) 258; bk. 12, L. ed. 681; Badger v. Badger, 2 Cliff. C. C. 137 Willis v. Robinson, 4 Bligh, 119. See also Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 90; s. c., II Am. Dec. 417; Sturt v. Mellish, 2 Atk. 610; Lockey v. Lockey, Prec. Ch. 518; Hovenden v. Annesley, 2 Sch. & Lef. 607.

Some States hold that in equity lapse of time operates only by way of evidence affording a presumption of payment. Livingston v. Livingston, 4 Johns. Ch. (N.Y.) 287; s. c., 8 Am. Dec. 562. Others hold that courts of equity are bound by the statutes of limitations as much as courts of law. See Shelby v. Shelby, Cooke (Tenn.), 179; s. c., 5 Am. Dec. 686; Love 7. Watkins, 40 Cal. 517; Boyd v. Blankman, 29 Cal. 19; Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 484; Kelly v. Hurt, 61 Mo. 463; White v. Sheldon, 4 Nev. 280; Anderson v. Baxter, 4 Oreg. 105; Oregon Code Civ. Proc., § 378.

2. Lapse for Twenty Years raises a presumption of payment. Bailey v. Jackson, 16 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 210; s. c., 8 Am. Dec. 309; Livingston v. Livingston, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 287; s. c., 8 Am. Dec. 562; Swart v. Service, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 36; s. c., 34 Am. Dec. 211; Ludlow v. Van

Camp, 6 N. J. Eq. (2 Halst.) 113; s. c., II Am. Dec. 529; Wanmaker v. Van Buskirk, 1 N. J. Eq. (1 Saxt.) 685; s. c., 23 Am. Dec. 748; Gulick v. Loder, 3 N. J. L. (1 J. S. Gr.) 68; s. c., 23 Am. Dec. 711; Henderson v. Lewis, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 379; s. c., 11 Am. Dec. 733; Ordinary v. Steedman, Harp. (S. Car.) L. 387; s. c.. 18 Am. Dec. 652; Yarnell v. Moore, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 176; Carter v. Wolfe, I Heisk. (Tenn.) 700; Anderson v. Settle, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 203; Atkinson v. Dance, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 424; s. c., 30 Am. Dec. 422; Rodgers v. Judd, 5 Vt. 236; s. c., 26 Am. Dec. 301. But such presumption may be rebutted. See Brock v. Savage, 31 Pa. St. 422; King's Exrs. v. Coulders Exrs., 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 30; Cope v. Humphrey, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 21; Lesley v. Nones, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 410; Tilghman v. Fisher, 9 Watts (Pa.), 442; Bellas v. Lavan, 4 Watts (Pa.). 297.

Adverse Possession by Mortgagor for twenty years bars foreclosure. See Belmont. O'Brien, 12 N. Y. 394; Jackson v. Shauber, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 198; Jackson v. Wood, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 245; s. c., 7 Am. Dec. 312; Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 38; Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 278; s. c.. 5 Am. Dec. 273; Giles v. Baremore, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 550; Haskell v. Bailey, 22 Conn. 569; Elkins v. Edwards, 8 Ga. 326; Harris v. Mills, 28 Ill. 46; Chick v. Rollins, 44 Me. 104; Blethen v. Dwinal, 35 Me. 556; Boyd v. Harris, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 210; Bacon v. McIntire, 49 Mass. (8 Metc.) 87; Howland v. Shurtleff, 43 Mass. (2 Metc.) 26; s. c., 35 Am. Dec. 384; Thayer v. Mann., 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 535; Inches v. Leonard, 12 Mass. 379: Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212, 226; s. c., 66 Am. Dec. 609; Tripe v. Marcey, 39 N. H. 439; Evans 7. Huffman, 5 N. J. Eq. (1 Halst.) 354: Roberts v. Welch, 8 Ired. (N. Car.) Eq. 287; Richmond v. Aiken, 25 Vt. 324 Hughes v. Edwards, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 489; bk. 6, L. ed. 141; Trash v. White, Bro. Ch. 288, 291; Hillary v. Waller, 12 Ves. 265.

The general presumption, however, is that the mortgagor and his grantee hold subordinate to the mortgagee. See Boyd v. Beck, 29 Ala. 703; Noyes v. Sturdiyant, 18 Me. 104; Bacon v. McIntire, 49 Mass. (8 Metc.) 87; Tripe v. Marcey, 39 N. H. 439; Zeller v. Eckert, 45 U. S. (4 How.) 295; bk. 11, L. ed. 982; Hall v. Surtees, 5 Barn. & Ad. 687.

Recognition of Mortgage rebuts presumption. Heyer v. Pruyn, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 465; s. c., 34 Am. Dec. 355; Drayton v. Marshall, Rice (S. Car.), Eq. 383. 384; s. c., 33 Am. Dec. 84; Wright v. Eaves, 10 Rich. (S. Car.) Eq. 582; Hughes v. Edwards, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 489; bk. 6, L. ed. 142.

Possession Must be Hostile to divest mortgagee of right to foreclose. See Medley v. Elliott, 62 Ill. 532: Parker v. Banks, 79 N. Car. 480; Martin v. Jackson, 27 Pa. St. 504; Rockwell v. Servant, 63 Ill. 424 Jamison v. Perry, 38 Iowa, 14. Possession does not become antagonistic simply by neglect and refusal to pay interest, and the like. See Jones v. Williams, 5 Ad. & El. 291; Patridge v. Bere, 5 B. & Ald. 604. But possession after breach raises presumption of adverse possession. See Wilkinson v. Flowers, 37 Miss. 579; s. c., 75 Am. Dec. 78.

Presumption from Mortgagor's Possession.-Debts secured by mortgage are defeated by the same presumptions aris ing from lapse of time and laches as other demands. See Jackson v. Wood, 12 Johns, (N. Y.) 245; s. c., 7 Am. Dec. 315; Jack son v. Pratt, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 381; Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 278; s. c., 5 Am. Dec. 273; Giles v. Baremore. 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 552; Howland v. Shurtleff, 43 Mass. (2 Metc.) 26; s. c.. 25 Am. Dec. 344; Inches v. Leonard, 12 Mass. 379.

The doctrine of presumption arising from possession by the mortgagor for more than twenty years is now fully established in this country. See Jackson v. Wood, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 245; Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 381; Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 278; Giles 7. Baremore, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 522; Newcomb v. St. Peter's Church, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 636; McDonald v. Sims, 3 Ga. 383: Fild v. Wilson, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 479; Bacon v. McIntire, 49 Mass. (8 Metc.) 87; Howland 7. Shurtleff, 43 Mass. (2 Metc.) 26; s. c., 35 Am. Dec. 384 Inches v. Leonard, 12 Mass. 379; Hoffman v. Harrington, 33 Mich. 392; Reynolds 7. Green, 10 Mich. 355; Wilkinson v. Flowers. 37 Miss. 212; McNair . Lot. 34 Mo. 285; Martin v. Bowker, 19 Vt. 526; Hughes v. Edwards, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 489; bk. 6, L. ed. 142. Such presumption, however, is not conclusive, and may be repelled by circumstances. See Moore v. Cable, I Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 386; Cheever 7. Perley, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 584; Wanmaker v. Van Buskirk, 1 N. J. Eq. (1 Saxt.) 685; Booker v. Booker, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 605; s. c., 26 Am. Rep. 401; Hughes v. Edwards, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 489; bk. 6, L. ed. 142.

Lapse of Time and Neglect to Enforce Mortgage, at most, are simply grounds of presumption, not evidence of payment. Hillary v. Waller, 12 Ves. 239, 252), and may afford a sufficient answer in an action to foreclose. See Jackson v. Wood, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 245; Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 381; Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 278; Jackson v. Hudson, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 375; Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 135 Chuck v. Rollins, 44 Me. 104; Crook v. Glenn, 30 Md. 55; Bacon v. McIntire, 49 Mass. (8 Metc.) 87.

Rebuttal of Presumption by payment of interest, promise to pay, or acknowledgment of the debt: Cook v. Parhan, 63 Ala. 456; Coldcleugh v. Johnson, 34 Ark. 312; Lock v. Caldwell. 91 Ill. 417; Murphy v. Coats, 32 N. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 424; Snavely v. Pickel, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 27; Pears v. Laing, L. R. 12 Eq. 41.

Parol Evidence to Rebut Presumption must show some pos.tive act which is a recognition of the debt,-Jarvis v. Albro, 67 Me. 310;--such as a part payment,-Schmucker v. Sibert, 18 Kan 104. See Pease 7. Catlin. 1 Ill. App. 88; Clawson v. McCune, 20 Kan. 337;--or a positive new promise,--Crone v. Citizens Bank of La., 28 La. Ann. 449.

Presumption of Payment rebutted by showing ignorance of defendant's residence,-Bailey v. Jackson, 16 Johns. 210; s. c., 8 Am. Dec. 309;-or that the commencement of suit was prevented by war, --Hale v. Pack, 10 W. Va. 145;-or by showing any other circumstances which make payment or discharge improbable. Snavely v. Pickle, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 27; Brobst v. Brock, 77 U. S. (10 Wall.) 535; bk. 19, L. ed. 1002.

Relationship Between the Parties may rebut presumption of payment. Wanmaker v. Van Buskirk, I N. J. Eq. (1 Saxt.) 685; s. c., 23 Am. Dec. 748; Leman v. Newhan, 1 Ves. sr. 51.

Statute Begins to Run when right to foreclosure accrues. Prouty v. Eaton, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 409; Jackson v. Wood, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 242; s. c., 7 Am. Dec. 315; Wilkinsons v. Flowers, 37 Miss. 575; s. c., 75 Am. Dec. 78; Nevitt v. Bacon. 32 Miss. 212, 227; s. c., 66 Am. Dec. 609; Benson v. Stewart, 30 Miss. 49.

Where it begins to run, will not be suspended by a subsequent disability. Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 129; s. c., 8 Am. Dec. 467; Johnson v. Moore, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 513; s. c., 7 Am. Dec. 398; Ruff's Adm'r v. Bull, 7 Harr. & J. (Md.) 14; s, c., 16 Am. Dec. 290; Thompson v. Smith, 7 Serg. & R.

(Pa.) 209; s. c., 10 Am. Dec. 453; Adamson v. Smith, 2 Mill (S. C.) 267; s. c., 12 Am. Dec. 665; Faysoux v. Prayther, I Nott. & McC. (S. C.) 296; s. c., 9 Am. Dec. 691; Fitzhugh v. Anderson, 2 Hen. & Mumph. (Va.) 289; s. c., 3 Am. Dec. 625.

N. J. Eq. (I Saxt.) 685; s. c.. 23 Am. Dec. 748; Evans v. Huffman, 5 N. J. Eq. (1 Halst.) 360; Todd's Appeal, 24 Pa. St. 429; Bank of United States v. Biddle, 2 Pars. Cas. (Pa.) 31; Drayton v. Marshall, Rice (S. C.) Eq. 373; s. c., 33 Am. Dec. 84; Atkinson v. Dance, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 424; s. c., 30 Am. Dec. 422; Booker v. Booker, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 605; s. c., 26 Am. Rep. 401; Whipple v. Barnes. 21 Wis. 327; Hughes v. Edwards, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 489; bk. 6. L. ed. 142; N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. $S 365. 379; Belmont v. O'Brien, 12 N. Y. 394; Jackson v. Wood, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 242; Jackson v. De Lancey, II Johns. (N. Y.) 365; s. c., 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 537; Jackson v. Pierce, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 278; Jackson v. Hudson, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 375; Giles v. Baremore, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 545; Dunham v. Minard, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 441; Chick v. Rollins, 44 Me. 104; Blethere v. Dwinal, 35 Me. 556; Cheever v. Perley, 93 Mass. (II Allen), 584; Gould v. White, 26 N. H. 178; Evans v. Hoffman, 5 N. J. Eq. (1 Halst.) 354. But the ruling of statutes of limitations against the note secured does not bar an action to foreclose. See Brost z. Corey, 15 N. Y. 510; Waltermire v. Westover, 14 N. Y. 16; New York Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Covert, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 441; Pratt v. Heaggins, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 285: Gillette v. Smith, 18 Hun (N. Y.), 12; Heyer v. Pruyn, 7 Paige Ch (N. Y.) 465; s. c., 34 Am. Dec. 355; Jones v. Merchants' Bank of Albany, 4 Robt. (N. Y.) 227; Ware v. Curry, 67 Ala. 274; Scott v. Ware, 64 Ala. 174; Bizzell v. Nix, 60 Ala. 281; s. c., 31 Am. Rep. 38; Birnie 2. Main, 29 Ark. 591; Hough 7. Bailey, 32 Conn. 289; Haskell v. Bailey, 22 Conn. 573: Belknap v. Gleason, 11 Conn. 160; S. C.. 27 Am. Dec. 721; Browne v. Browne, 17 Fla. 607; s. c., 38 Am. Rep. 96; Elkins v. Edwards, 8 Ga. 325; Wright v. Le Claire, 3 Iowa, 231; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195; Özmun v. Reynolds, 11 Minn. 473; Trustees of Jefferson College v. Dickson, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 482; Savings Bank v. Ladd, 40 N. H. 463; Fisher v. Mossman, 11 Ohio St. 46; Larey v. May, 16 Ohio, 66; Sparhawk v. Buell, 9 Vt. 74; Cole v. Withers, 33 Gratt. (Va.) 186; Wyat v. Carnithew, 21 W. Va. 516; Pitzer v. Burns, 7 W. Va. 77; Knox v. Galligan. 21 Wis. 470; Wiswell v. Baxter, 20 Wis. 680; Almy v. Wilbur, 2 Woodb. & M. C. C. 404. See also Waltermire v. Westover, 14 N. Y. 820; Jackson v. Sackett, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 94; Baldwin v. Norton, 2 Conn. 163; Kellar v. Sinton, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 307; Crain v. Paine, 58 Mass. (4 Cush.) 483; Eastman v. Foster,

Action on Note Barred does not bar action upon mortgage. Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212; s. c., 66 Am. Dec. 609; Trotter v. Erwin, 27 Miss. 772; Bush v. Cooper, 26 Miss. 611; s. c., 59 Am. Dec. 270; Miller v. Trustees of Jefferson College, 13 Miss. (5 Smed. & M.) 561; Green v. Gastin, 56 Miss. 751; Wilkinson v. Flowers, 37 Miss. 579; s.c.,75 Am. Dec. 78; Miller. Helm, 10 Miss. (2 Smed. & M.) 597. But an action will be barred by the same lapse of time that would bar an action for the mortgaged premises. Jack son v. Wood, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 242; s. c.. 7 Am. Dec. 315; Wilkinson v. Flowers, 37 Miss. 579; s. c., 75 Am. Dec. 78; Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212. 227; s. c., 66 Am. Dec. 609; Benson v. Stewart, 30 Miss. 49. It is true that uninterrupted possession for twenty years after condition broken, without any demand of principal or interest, or any claim on the part of the mortgagee, raises a presumption that the debt has been paid, in the absence of circumstances rebutting such presumption. See Barned v. Barned, 21 N. J. Eq. (6 C. E. Gr.) 245; Hays v. Whitall, 13 N. J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 242; Wanmaker 2. Van Buskirk, I N. J. Eq. (1 Saxt.) 685; s. c., 23 Am. Dec. 748; Evans v. Huffman, 5 N. J. Eq. (1 Halst.) 360; Harrington v. Slade, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 161; Bailey v. Jackson, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 210; s. c.. 8 Am. Dec. 309; Giles v. Baremore, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 545; Living ston v. Livingston, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 287; s. c.. 8 Am. Dec. 562; Heyer v. Pruyn, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 465; s. c., 34 Am. Dec. 355; Swart v. Service, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 36; s. c., 34 Am. Dec. 211; Perkins v. Cartmell, 4 Harr. (Del.) 275; RecMelson, 1 Houst. (Del.) 139; Van Duyn . Hepner, 45 Ind. 589; Jarvis 7. Albro, 67 Me. 310; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Trimble, 51 Md. 99; Cheever v. Perley, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 584; Proctor v. Creighton, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) 437; Ayres v. Waite, 64 Mass. (10 Cush.) 76; Bacon v. McIntire, 49 Mass. (8 Metc.) 87; Howland v. Shurtleff, 43 Mass. (2 Metc.) 26; s. c., 35 Am. Dec. 384; Sheafe Gerry, 18 N. H. 245; Howard v. Hildreth, 18 N. H. 105; Downs 7. Sovy, 28 N. J. Eq. (1 Stew.) 55; Barned v. Barned, 21 N. J. Eq. (6 C. E. Gr.) 246; Hayes v. Whitall, 13 N. J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 242; Wanmaker v. Van Buskirk, I

ords z.

49 Mass. (8 Metc.) 19; Thayer v. Mann, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 536; Trotter v. Erwin, 27 Miss. 771; Wood v. Augustine, 61 Mo. 46; Cookes v. Culbertson, 9 Nev. 199; Mackie v. Lansing, 2 Nev. 302; Reed v. Edwards, 2 Nev. 262; Henry v. Confidence Gold & Silver Co., 1 Nev. 619; Langworth v. Taylor, 2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. (Ohio), 39; Meyer v. Beal, 5 Oreg. 530; Harris v. Vaughn, 2 Tenn. Ch. 483; Richman v. Aiker, 25 Vt. 324; Kennedy v. Knight, 21 Wis. 340; Whipple v. Barne, 21 Wis. 327; Cleveland v. Harrison, 15 Wis. 670; Union Bank of La. v. Stafford, 53 U. S. (12 How.) 327, 340; bk. 13, L. ed. 1008; Townsend v. Jenison, 50 U. S. (9 How.) 413; bk. 13, L. ed. 880; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 38 U. S. (13 Pet.) 312; bk. 10, L. ed. 177; Hughes v. Edwards, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 489; bk. 6, L. ed. 142; Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 122, bk. 4, L. ed. 529; Sparks v. Pico, McAll. C. C. 497; Higgins v. Scott, 2 Barn. & Add. 413; Spears v. Hartley, 3 Esp. 81.

The reason is that the mortgage has a legal import more extensive than the note, which is a mere evidence of the debt. Borst v. Covey, 15 N. Y. 506; Heyer v. Pruyn, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 465; Baldwin v. Norton, 2 Conn. 161; Elkins v. Edwards, 8 Ga. 325; Joy v. Adams, 26 Me. 330; Balch v. Onion, 58 Mass. (4 Cush.) 559; Thayer v. Mann, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 535; Michigan Ins. Co. v. Brown, II Mich. 265; Wilkinson v. Flowers, 37 Miss. 579; s. c., 75 Am. Dec. 78; Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212; 66 Am. Dec. 609; Trotter v. Erwin, 27 Miss. 772; Miller v. Trustees of Jefferson College, 13 Miss. (5 Smed. & M.) 561; Whipple v. Barns, 21 Wis. 327; Wiswell v. Baxter, 20 Wis. 68; Richmond v. Aiken, 25 Vt. 324. Compare Haskell v. Bailey, 22 Conn. 569. The mortgage remains in full force until the debt which it secures is paid, except where the mortgagee loses his rights by negligence. Joy v. Adams, 26 Me. 330.

A Contrary Rule prevails in some States. Lent v. Morrill, 25 Cal. 492; McCarthy. White, 21 Cal. 495; Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 482; Emory v. Keighan, 94 Ill. 543; Brown v. Rockhol, 49 Iowa, 282; Clinton Co. v. Cox, 37 Iowa, 570; Hubbard v. Missouri V. L. Ins. Co., 25 Kan. 172; Schmucker v. Sibert, 18 Kan. 104; s. c., 26 Am. Rep. 765; Huxley v. Cox. 9 Neb. 230; Blackwell v. Barnett, 52 Tex. 326; Ross 7. Mitchell, 28 Tex. 150; Daggs v. Ewell, 3 Woods C. C. 344. Where such a rule prevails, a grantee of the mortgagor may avail himself of the statute of limitations. Wood v. Goodfellow, 43 Cal. 185; Lent v. Shear, 26 Cal.

361; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 16; McCarthy v. White, 21 Cal. 495; Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 428; Medley v. Elliott, 62 Ill. 532; Pollock v. Maison. 41 Ill. 517; Harris v. Mills, 28 Ill. 44; Schmucker v. Sibert. 18 Kan. 104; s. c., 26 Am. Rep. 765; Low v. Allen, 41 Me. 248.

Danforth

The Statute Does Not Bar or Discharge the Debt or in any way destroy the obligation. Sichel v. Carrillo, 42 Cal. 493. The debt remains unsatisfied, and is a sufficient consideration to support a new promise. Sichel v. Carrillo, 42 Cal. 493. Removal of the Bar of the Statute is effected by acknowledgment. v. Culver, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 146; s. c., 6 Am. Dec. 361; Lord v. Shaler, 3 Conn. 132; s. c., 8 Am. Dec. 160; Mellick v. De Selhorst, I Ill. (Breese) 171; s. c., 12 Am. Dec. 172; Bell v. Rowland, Hard. (Ky.) 301; s. c., 3 Am. Dec. 729; Seaward v. Lord, I Me. (1 Greenl.) 163; s. c., IO Am. Dec. 50; Bangs v. Hall, 20 Mass. (2 Pick.) 379; s. c.. 13 Am. Dec. 437; Jones v. Moore, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 573; s. c., 6 Am. Dec. 428; Fries v. Boisselet, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 128; s. c., II Am. Dec. 683; Glenn v. McCullough, 1 Harp. (S. Car.) L. 484; s. c., 18 Am. Dec. 661; Lee v. Perry, 3 McC. (S. Car.) 552; s. c., 15 Am. Dec. 650; Burden v. McElhenny, 2 Nott & McC. (S. Car.) 60; s. c., 10 Am. Dec. 570; Olcott v. Scales, 3 Vt. 173; s. c., 21 Am. Dec. 585. Respecting what promises will remove the statutory bar, see Lord v. Shaler, 3 Conn. 132; s. c., 8. Am. Dec. 160; Glenn v. McCullough, I Harp. (S. Car.) L. 484; s. c., 18 Am. Dec. 661; Burden. McElhenny, 2_Nott & McC. (S. Car.) 60; s. c., 10 Am. Dec. 570; Danforth v. Culver, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 146;. s. c., 6 Am. Dec. 361; Bell v. Roland, Hard. (Ky.) 301; s. c., 3 Am. Dec. 729; Newhouse z. Redwood, 7 Ala. 599; McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180; Kimmel v. Schwartz, I Ill. (Breese) 282; Gray v. Lawridge, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 285; Hopkins v. Stout, 6 Bush (Ky.). 384; Smith v. Dawson, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 114; Fischer v. Hess, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 617; French v. Frazier, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 431; Heard v. Manner, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 259; Rochester v. Buford, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 33: Hord v. Lee, 4 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 36; Lansdale v. Brashear, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 332; McLean v. Thorp, 4 Mo. 259; Shaw v. Newell, 2 R. I. 269; Belote v. Wynne, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 541; Bell v. Morrison, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 363; bk. 7, L. ed. 179. See also Blakeman v. Fonda, 41 Conn. 561; Wachter v. Albee, So Ill. 47; Carroll v. Forsyth, 69 Ill. 127; Collins v. Bane, 34 Iowa, 385; Gray v. McDowell, 6 Bush (Ky.), 475; Citizens' Bank v. Johnson, 21

La. Ann. 128; Parker v. Shuford, 76 N. C. 219; Miller v. Baschore, 83 Pa. St. 356; Senseman v. Hershman, 82 Pa. St.83. Acknowledgment of Debt accompanied by a conditional promise to pay will remove the bar. Sedgwick v. Gerding, 55 Ga. 264; Carroll v. Forsyth, 69 Ill. 127; Norton v. Colby, 52 Ill. 199; Parsons v. Northern Illinois Coal & I. Co., 38 Ill. 433; Ayers v. Richards, 12 Ill. 148. The acknowledgment or promise must be made by the debtor or by some one in his behalf; and must be made to the creditor or his agent, and not to a mere stranger. Wakeman v. Sherman, 9 N. Y. 85; Bloodgood v. Bruen, 8 N. Y. 362; Ringo v. Brooks, 26 Ark. 540; Farrell v. Palmer, 36 Cal. 187; Keener v. Crull, 19 Ill. 189; Collins v. Bane, 34 Iowa, 385; Roscoe v. Hale, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) 274; Taylor v. Hendrie, 8 Nev. 243: Johns v. Lantz, 63 Pa. St. 324; Kyle v. Wells, 17 Pa. St. 286; s. c., 55 Am. Dec. 555; Christy v. Flemington, 10 Pa. St. 129; s. c., 49 Am. Dec. 590; F. & M. Bank v. Wilson, 10 Watts (Pa.), 261; Georgia & T. Ins. Co. v. Ellicott, Taney Č. C. 130; 3 Parsons on Contr. (5th ed.) 86; Sibert v. Wild, 16 Kan. 176; s. c., 22 Am. Rep. 280; Trammeil v. Salmon, 2 Bail. (S. Car.) 308; Robbins v. Farley, 2 Strobh. (S. Car.) 348.

Payment on Debt is evidence of promise, and removes bar. See Newlin v. Duncan, 1 Harr. (Del.) 204; s. c., 25 Am. Dec. 66; Hunt v. Bridgham, 20 Mass. (2 Pick.) 581; s. c., 13 Am. Dec. 458; Reid v. McNaughton, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 179; Carshore v. Huyck, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 588; Bell v. Morrison, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 370; bk. 7, L. ed. 182; Ross v. Jones, 89 U. S. (22 Wall.) 593; bk. 22, L. ed. 730; Wenman v. Mohawk Ins. Co., 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 167; s. c., 28 Am. Dec. 464; Kincaid v. Archibald, 10 Hun (N. Y.), 11; New York L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Covert, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 435: Jarvis v. Albro, 67 Me. 310.

Where There are Several Persons Interested in the equity of redemption, and interest is paid by one, this will not remove the bar as to the others. Pears v. Laing, L. R. 12 Eq. 51, 54; Roddman v. Morley, 1 De G. & J. 1.

Payment by Agent or other interested person removes bar. L. R. I Eq. 29. stranger does not. H. L. Cas. 115.

Ward v. Carttar, However, payment by a Chinnery v. Evans, II

Mortgagee, After Remedy Barred, has a right to retain possession until the debt is paid. Chase v. Peck, 21 N. Y. 581; Siahler v. Singner, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 606; Munroe v. Merchant, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 383;

Casey v. Buttolph, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 637: Jackson v. Delancy, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 537; s. c., 7 Am. Dec. 403: Moore v. Cable, I Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 385; Watson v. Spence, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 260; Phyfe v. Riley, 15. Wend. (N. Y.) 248; s. c., 30 Am. Dec. 55; Van Duyne v. Thayre, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Bussey v. Page, 14 Me. 132; Pace v. Chadderdon, 4 Minn. 499; Pettengill v. Evans, 5 N. H. 54; Henry v. Confidence Gold & Silver Mining Co., I Nev. 619; Den v. Wright, 7 N. J. L. (2 Halst.) 175; S. C., II Am. Dec. 546; Harris v, Haynes, 34 Vt. 220; Hennesy v. Farrell, 20 Wis. 42. So also may an assignee of a mortgagee, in possession. Jackson v. Bowen, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 13; Jackson v. Minkler, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 480; Madison Ave. Baptist Church v. Baptist Church in Oliver St., 73 N. Y. 82; Trimm v. Marsh, 54 N. Y. 599; s c., 13 Am. Rep. 623; Winslow. McCall, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 241; Bolton v. Brewster, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 389; Watson v. Spence, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 261, 264; Jackson v. De Lancey, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 365; s. c., 13 Johns. (Ñ. Y.) 537; Randall v. Raab, 2 Abb. (N. Y.) Pr. 307, 314; Casey v. Buttolph, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 637, 640.

The reason of this is said to be because, independent of statute, the mortgagee is. the absolute owner at law after default of payment. Edwards v. Farmers' F. Ins. Co., 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 467, 484; Jackson v. Pierce, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 414; Smith v. Shuler, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 240; Simpson's Lessee v. Ammons, i Binn. (Pa.) 175.

Less than Twenty Years in some States raises a bar to foreclosure. See Henderson v. Lewis, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 379; s. c., II Am. Dec. 733; Lesley v. Nones, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 410; Husky v. Maples, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 25; Leiper v. Erwin, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 97; Freeman on Judgments, §§ 464. 465; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 528; Atkins v. Dance, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 424; s. c.. 30 Am. Dec. 422; Blackburne. v. Squib, Peck (Tenn.), 64; Yarnell v. Moore, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 176; Carter v. Wolfe, I Heisk. (Tenn.) 700; Anderson v. Settle, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 203.

The General Doctrine is that the fact that the Statute of Limitations has run upon the note, or other debt secured by the mortgage, does not affect the enforcement of the mortgage by appropriate remedies; for, although the remedy for the collection of the debt is barred, the debt itself is not extinguished. Jervis v. Woodruff, 22 Conn. 548; Pratt v. Huggins, 29 Barb. (N. Y.)