operation January 1, 1879, the period has been reduced to twelve years. 1 2 IV. Foreclosure by Sale the Prevailing Mode.-Foreclosure by sale is the prevailing method for obtaining payment of mortgage debts in the courts of the American States; being the mode adopted by all of them with the exception of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. In Illinois, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, when the foreclosure is by scire facias a sale of the premises is ordered. Foreclosure by sale is the method adopted in the United States courts. It is also the method now generally adopted in the English courts under the provisions of the Chancery Improvement Act.3 While foreclosure sales are now largely regulated by statutes, they are still based upon the principles of equity jurisdiction; and these principles are constantly invoked and applied in the course of the proceeding, even in those States where the Code system is adopted. 1. Nature of the Remedy.-Foreclosure by sale is not strictly a proceeding in rem, but is in the nature of such remedy. The primary purpose is to enforce the lien on the land, and in this respect it is properly a proceeding in rem; but inasmuch as, secondarily, the rights and equities of all parties in interest are to be adjusted, and, now in a majority of the courts, a personal judgment against the mortgagor for any deficiency existing after the application of the proceeds of the sale to the debt, may be taken, it partakes largely of the nature of a proceeding in personam as well." It 277; Eastman v. Foster, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 19; Kennedy v. Knight, 21 Wis. 340; Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212; Bush v. Cooper, 26 Miss. 599; s. c., 59 Am. Dec. 270; Donnelly v. Simonton, 13 Minn. 301; Crain v. Paine, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 483; Elkins v. Edwards, 8 Ga. 326; Wood v. Augustine, 61 Mo. 46; Baldwin v. Norton, 2 Conn. 161; Fisher v. Mossman, 11 Ohio St. 42; Kellar v. Sinton, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 248; Birnie v. Maine, 29 Ark. 591; Harris v. Vaughn, 2 Tenn. Ch. 483; Ohio Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Winn. 4 Md. Ch. 253; Browne v. Browne, 17 Fla. 607. But in the States of Illinois, Kansas, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, and California, and perhaps in one or two other States, when the debt is barred the remedy for the enforcement of the mortgage is barred also. Harris v. Mills, 28 Ill.; 44 Schumucker v. Sibert; 18 Kan. 104; Ross v. Mitchell, 28 Tex. 150; Duty 7. Graham, 12 Tex. 427; s. c., 62 Am. Dec. 534; Clinton Co. v. Cox, 37 Iowa, 570. 1. Real Property Limitation Act of 1874. 37 & 38 Vict. ch. 57, § 8. See Duncan v. Cobb, 32 Minn. 460. as to foreclosure under Minnesota statutes. Payment of part of the mortgage debt, 3. 15 & 16 Vict., ch. 86, 48; Newman v. Selfa, 33 Beav. 522; Belaney v. Cockle, 18 Jur. (Eng.) 465. The mode of procedure in the Irish courts requires a sale of the premises. 3 Jo. & Lat. 586. In Pennsylvania, when there is an abuse of trust under the mortgage deed, equitable proceedings to control the execution of the power may be resorted to. Bradley v. Chester Valley R. Co., 36 Pa. St. 141. 4. The advantages of sale of the premises in foreclosure proceedings, over strict foreclosure and foreclosure by entry and possession, are apparent. It is the more equitable course of procedure, and more effectually subserves the interests and rights of all persons in any way inter may be said to be a combination of both, and to be a remedy sui generis.1 V. Proceedings in Foreclosure Sales. Proceedings to foreclose mortgages by a sale of the premises are equitable in their character, and the principles of equity jurisprudence, as well as the methods of procedure in equity suits, are constantly adhered to. 1. In What Courts to be Brought.-The courts in which foreclosure suits are to be brought are designated by statute in many of the American States; and when not so designated, they are properly brought in the court which has equity jurisdiction.3 ested in the mortgaged premises, for the reason that all the various and conflicting equities of the parties can be adjusted out of the surplus proceeds of the sale. It is also more consonant with the modern doctrine of mortgages, which regards them as not creating an estate in the land, involving, as a logical consequence, the investiture of the mortgagee with an absolute estate in the land upon condition broken, but as constituting a mere lien upon it as making the land but a security for the debt; and that therefore no judicial proceeding for the enforcement of the mortgagee's rights should be predicated upon, or result in an absolute estate in the mortgagee. Out of the proceeds of the sale, all rights and interests can be protected, so far as priorities will allow; and all conflicting claims can be adjusted, and a final distribution of the proceeds be made with justice to the rights of all persons concerned. See Story Eq. Ju. 1025. 1. In most of the States there are statutory requirements for the bringing of the suit in the county where the land lies. And, where a sale of the land is to be decreed, the jurisdiction should be local, even without such requirement. Caufman v. Sayre, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 202; Chadbourne v. Forster, 29 Iowa, 181; Boome v. Beers, 6 Conn. 198; Penniman v. Hollis, 13 Mass. 429: Amidown v. Peck, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 467. A mortgagee as such is not entitled to bring ejectment, nor to institute his suit of foreclosure as auxiliary to the ejectment. Livingston v. Hays, 43 Mich. 129. In Vermont the court of chancery has jurisdiction to foreclose a mortgage, no matter in what form it may exist. Ross v. Shurtleff, 55 Vt. 177. In California, under § 72 of Code of Civil Procedure, "there can be but one action for the recovery of a debt . . . secured by mortgage." Held, that where mortgagee had obtained final judgment in Ohio upon a note secured by mortgage on land in California he could not afterwards maintain an action for foreclosure. Ould v. Stoddard, 54 Cal. 613. A mortgage may be foreclosed in favor of both creditors at the same time, where it is a single mortgage to secure two creditors to the amounts respectively due them; it is not objectionable as joining distinct and separate claims in the same action. Chamberlain v. Beck, 68 Ga. 343. As to proper mode of procedure under Rev. Stat. § 3157, of Wisconsin, as to foreclosure suits in case of instalments due and not due, see Schroder v. Laubenheimer, 50 Wis. 480. 2. For an enumeration of the statutory provisions of the several States, see 2 Jones on Mort. (2d Ed.) ch. 30. Regulating Statutes have been passed in California, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. See Byron v. May, 2 Chand. (Wis.) 103; Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 290; Warehime v. Carroll Co. Building Assoc., 44 Md. 512; State Bank of Illinois v. Wilson, 8 Ill. 57. 3. Shaw v. Norfolk Co. R. Co., 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 162; McElrath v. Pittsburgh & S. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 189. Power of Sale in Mortgage will not deprive courts of equity of jurisdiction. Alabama Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Pettway, 24 Ala. 544; Carradine v. O'Connor, 21 Ala. 573; Warehime v. Carroll Co. Build. Assoc., 44 Md. 212; Morrison v. Bean, 15 Tex. 267; Walton v. Cody, 1 Wis. 420; Byron v. May, 2 Chand. (Wis.) 103. The reason for this is said to be to enable the mortgagee, who cannot purchase at his own sale, but can on sale made by officer of court, to become the purchaser. Marriott v. Givens, 8 Ala. 694; McGowan v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 7 Ala. 823; Benjamin v. Cavaroc. 2 Woods C. C. 168. Foreclosure in Federal Courts.-As to foreclosure in Federal courts, see 17 U. S Stat. 193: Benjamin v. Cavaroc, 2 Woods C. C. 168; Case of Broderick's Will, 88 U. S. (21 Wall.) 503, 520; s. c. sub nom. Kelly v. McGlynn, bk. 22, L. ed. 599; Thompson v. Central O. R. Co., 73 U. S (6 Wall.) 134. 137; bk. 18, L. ed. 765: Bennett v. Butterworth, 52 U. S. (11 Under the Code system, in which the distinction between the forms of procedure at law and in equity, as well as the courts of law and equity themselves, are abolished, with but one form of procedure and but one court in which to conduct them, the rules and principles of equity jurisdiction are nevertheless applied in the conduct of the foreclosure suits as fully as in courts of those States which still retain the separate equity tribunals; for these foreclosure suits properly rest upon the inherent jurisdiction of equity in the administration of trust estates.2 Whether subsequent encum chester, 12 Iowa, 521; Cole v. Connor, 10 Iowa, 299; Caufman v. Sayre, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 202; Newman v. Stuart, Cooke (Tenn.) 339; Kinney v. McLeod, 9 Tex. 78; Paget v. Ede, L. R. 18 Eq. 118; Toller v. Carteret, 2 Vern. 494. 2. Parties in Foreclosure Suits.-All persons who have any interest in the mortgage debt, and also the owner of the equity of redemption, are necessary parties.3 How.) 669, 674, 675; bk. 13, L. ed. 859; Robinson v. Campbell, 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.) 212; bk. 4, L. ed. 372; Barber v. Barber, 62 U. S. (21 How.) 582; bk. 16, L. ed. 226; Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U. S. (18 How.) 331, 347; bk. 15, L. ed. 401; United States v. Howland, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 108; bk. 4, L. ed. 526; Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. C. C. 465; Gordon v. Hobart, 2 Sumn. C. C. 401; Levy v. Haake, 53 Cal. 267; Johnson v. Stimmel, 89 N.Y.117; Thurber v. Blanck, 50 N. Y.86. Where Debt Payable in Another County. -As to jurisdiction of the court when land lies in another county, see Iowa Loan & T. Co. v. Day, 63 Iowa, 459; Equitable L. Ins. Co. v. Gleason, 56 Iowa, 47; Chadbourne v. Gilman, 29 Iowa, 181. Where Property Situated in Two States. -An equity code in either State has jurisdiction to foreclose the whole. Mead v. New York, H. & N. R. Co., 45 Conn. 199, 223; Toller v. Carteret, 2 Vern. 494; Penn v. Baltimore, I Ves. Sr. 444. The better practice is thought to be, however, to bring a separate suit in each State. In re United States Rolling-stock Co., 55 How. (N. Y.) 236; Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. B. & M. T. Co., 44 Hun (N. Y.), 400. Where Land Lies Out of the State.-As to practice in such cases, see House v. Lockwood, 40 Hun (N. Y.), 532; Ewer v. Coffin, 55 Mass. (1 Cush.) 23; Phelps v. Holker, 1 U. S. (1 Dall.) 261; bk. 1, L. ed. 128; Kilburn v. Woodworth, Johns. (N. Y.) 37; Robinson v. Ex'rs of Ward, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 86; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 461, 468; Ocean Ins. Co. v. Portsmouth Marine R. Co., 44 Mass. (3 Metc.) 564. Transitory Action.-An action to foreclose a mortgage in the absence of statute may be brought wherever jurisdiction of the parties can be acquired. Bates v. Reynolds, 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) 685: Porter v. Lord, 4 Duer (N. Y.), 682; Varian v. Stevens, 2 Duer (N. Y.), 635; Broome v. Beers, 6 Conn. 198; Finnegan v. Man 1. Pomeroy Remedies & Remedial Rights (2d Ed.). § 68; also §§ 56, 64, 333; 2 Jones on Mortg. (2d Ed.) §§ 1443, 1451. 2. 2 Jones on Mortg. (2d Ed.) § 1443. 3. 2 Jones on Mortg. (2d Ed.) § 1394; Pomeroy Remedies & Remedial Rights (2d Ed.), § 333. Parties Plaintiff.-All parties interested in obtaining the judgment demanded should be parties plaintiff; such as: Sole mortgagee. Haskell v. Bailey, 22 Conn. 573; Newall v. Wright, 3 Mass. 138; Wendell v. New Hampshire Bank, 9 N. H. 404, 417; Sutton v. Stone, 2 Atk. 101; Hubbell v. Sibley, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 51. Assignee of mortgagee. Andrews v. Gillespie, 47 N. Y. 487; Christie 7. Herrick, I Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 254; Franklyn v. Hayward, 61 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 43; Whitney. McKinney, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 144: Meeker . Claghorn, 44 N. Y. 349; Allen v. Brown, 44 N. Y. 228; Brown v. Snell, 6 Fla. 741; Strother v. Law, 54 Ill. 413; Crooker v. Jewell, 31 Me. 306; Hills 7. Eliot. 12 Mass. 26; Gould v. Newman, 6 Mass. 239; Fisher 7. Meister, 24 Mich. 447; McGuffey v. Finley, 20 Ohio, 474; Miller v. Bear, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 466; Kinna v. Smith, 3 N. J. Eq. (2 H. W. Gr.) 14: Dolman v. Cook, 14 N. J. Eq. (1 McCart.) 56; Horstman v. Gerker, 49 Pa. St. 282; Knox v. Galligan, 21 Wis. 470; Douglass v. Durin, 51 Me. 121; Casper . Munger, 62 Ind. 481; Wood v. Williams, 4 Madd. 186; Fisher on Mortgages, § 355; Mansing v. Ains worth, 58 Ill. 163: Heath v. Hall, 60 Ill. 344. Compare Wilson v. Spring. 64 Ill. 14; Dempster v. Webster, 69 Ill. 613. Parol Assignment will give assignee interest that may be foreclosed in his own name. Slaughter v. Foust, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 379; Clearwater v. Rose, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 137: Green v. Marble, 37 Iowa, 95: Pease v. Warren, 29 Mich. 9; Denton v. Cole, 30 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 244; Andrews v. McDaniel, 68 N. C. 385. An Equitable Assignment gives an interest that may be foreclosed. Johnson v. Leonards, 68 Me. 237; Dixfield v. Newton, 41 Me. 221; Dorkay v. Noble, 8 Me. (8 Greenl.) 278; Carll v. Butman, 7 Me. (7 Greenl.) 102; Bullard v. Hinckley, 5 Me. (5 Greenl.) 272; Stewart v. Thompson, 3 Vt. 255. The Assignee of One of Several Notes May Foreclose in his own name. See Gower v. Howe, 20 Ind. 396; Hough v. Osborne, 7 Ind. 140; Stanley v. Beatty, 4 Ind. 134; Johnson v. Candage, 31 Me. 28; Swartz v. Leist, 13 Ohio St. 419; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 16; Andrews v. Fiske, 101 Mass. 422; Brown v. De laney, 22 Minn. 349; Chappell 7. Allen, 38 Mo. 213; Anderson v. Baumgartner, 27 Mo. 80; Page v. Pierce, 26 N. H. (6 Fost.) 317; Furbush v. Goodwin, 25 N. H. (5 Fost.) 425. Joint Mortgagees Should be Joined as Plaintiffs.-Paton v. Murray, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 474; Sanford v. Bulkley, 30 Conn. 344; Baker v. Shepard, 30 Ga. 706; Hopkins v. Ward, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 185; Gleises v. Maignan, 3 La. 530; Brown v. Bates, 55 Me. 520; Shirkey v. Hanna, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 403; Platt v. Squire, 53 Mass. (12 Metc.) 494, 501; Woodward v. Wood, 19 Ala. 213. Representatives of Deceased Mortgagee. -Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 32 N. J. Eq. (5 Stew.) 678, 683; Freeman v. Schofield, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 28; Savings Bank v. Freese, 26 N. J. Eq. (11 C. E. Gr.) 453; Martin v. McReynolds, 6 Mich. 70. Owner of One of Several Notes May Foreclose. Hartwell v. Blocker, 6 Ala. 581; Wilson v. Hayward, 2 Fla. 27; Myers v. Wright, 33 Ill. 284; Pogue v. Clark, 25 Ill. 351; Ross v. Utter, 15 Ill. 402; Goodall v. Mopley, 45 Ind. 355; Merritt v. Wells, 18 Ind. 171; Stanley v. Beatty, 4 Ind. 134; Barrett v. Blackmar, 47 Iowa, 569; Lyster v. Brewer, 13 Iowa, 461; Sangster v. Love, II Iowa, 580; Rankin v. Major, 9 Iowa, 297; Swenson v. Moline Plow Co., 14 Kan. 387; Jenkins v. Smith, 4 Metc. (Ky.) 380; Bell v. Shrock, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 29; Jordon v. Cheney, 74 Me. 359; Moore v. Ware, 38 Me. 496; Johnson v. Candage, 31 Me. 28; Haynes v. Wellington, 25 Me. 458; Johnson v. Brown, 31 N. H. 405; Wiley v. Pinson, 23 Tex. 486; Pettibone v. Ed. wards, 15 Wis. 95; King v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 5 N. Y. 547, 556; Pugh v. Holt, 27 Miss. 461; Archer v. Jones, 26 Miss. 583. All Holders of Notes are Necessary Parties, that the amounts and priorities of their several claims may be determined. Meyers v. Wright, 33 Ill. 284; Thayer v. Campbell, 9 Mo. 277; Mitchell v. Ladew, 36 Mo. 526; Hurck v. Erskine, 45 Mo. 484; Thompson v. Field, 38 Mo. 320; Mason v. Barnard, 36 Mo. 384; Bank of Mobile v. Planters' & Merchants' Bank, 9 Ala. 645; McVay v. Bloodgood, 9 Port. (Ala.) 547; Cullum v. Erwin, 4 Ala. 452; Cotton v. Blocker, 6 Fla. 1; Humphreys v. Morton, 100 Ill. 592; Koester v. Burke, 81 Ill. 436; Herrington v. McCullum, 73 Ill. 476; Flower v. Elwood, 66 Ill. 438; Preston v. Hodgen, 50 Ill. 56; Funk v. McReynolds, 33 Ill. 481; Gerber v. Sheep, 72 Ind. 553; Doss v. Ditmars, 70 Ind. 451; Evansville Peoples' Sav. Bank v. Finney, 63 Ind. 460; Sample v. Rowe, 24 Ind. 408; Murdock v. Ford, 17 Ind. 52; Hough v. Osborne, 7 Ind. 140; Harris v. Harlan, 14 Ind. 439; Stanley v. Beatty, 4 Ind. 134; State Bank v. Tweedy, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 447; Walker v. Schreider, 47 Iowa, 529; Richardson v. McKim, 20 Kan. 346; Mitchell v. Ladew, 36 Mo. 536; Noyes v. Barnet, 57 N. H. 605; Johnson v. Brown, 31 N. H. 405; Hunt v. Stiles, 10 N. H. 466; Winters v. Bank, 33 Ohio St. 250; Bushfield v. Meyer, 10 Ohio St. 334; Bank of United States v. Covert, 13 Ohio, 240; Pierce v. Shaw, 51 Wis. 316; Marine Bank v. International Bank, 9 Wis. 57; Wood v. Trask, 7 Wis. 566; Smith v. Stevens, 49 Conn. 181; Sargent v. Howe, 21 Ill. 148; Vansant v. Allmon, 23 Ill. 30, 34; Humphreys v. Morton, 100 Ill. 592; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 16; Phelan v. Olney, 6 Cal. 478; Winters v. Bank, 33 Ohio St. 250. Notes Payable pro Rata in many of the States. See Granger v. Crouch, 86 N. Y. 494. 499; Bridenbecker v. Lowell, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 9: Collerd v. Huson, 34 N. J. Eq. (7 Stew.) 38; Perry's Appeal, 22 Pa. St. 43; Hodge's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 359: Wilson v. Eigenbrodt, 30 Minn. 4; Wilcox v. Allen, 36 Mich. 160; McCurdy v. Clark, 27 Mich. 445; Trustees Jefferson College v. Prentiss, 29 Miss. 46; Bank of England v. Tarleton, 23 Miss. 173; Henderson v. Herrod, 18 Miss. (10 Smed. & M.) 631; Dick v. Mawry, 17 Miss. (9 Smed. & M.) 448; Terry Woods, 14 Miss. (6 Smed. & M.) 138; Cage v. Iler, 13 Miss. (5 Smed. & M.) 410. Parker v. Mercer, 7 Miss. (6 How.) 320; Campbell v. Johnston, 4 Dana (Ky.), 182; Belding v. Manly, 21 Vt. 5503 Keyes v. Wood, 21 Vt. 331; Wright v. Parker, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 212. V. Owner of Pledged Mortgage May Foreclose.-Norton v. Warner, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 106; Simson 7. Satterlee, 64 N. Y. 657, aff'm s. c. 6 Hun (N. Y.), 305: Sinking Fund Comm'rs v. Northern Bank, I Metc. (Ky.) 174; McKinney v. Miller, 19 Mich. 142; George v. Woodward. 40 Vt. 672; Brunette v. Schettler, 21 Wis. 18S. But the pledgee is a necessary party. Plowman v. Riddle, 14 Ala. 169; Hoyt v. Martense, 16 N. Y. 231. See Simson v. Satterlee, 64 N. Y. 657; Norton v. Warner, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 106; N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. § 448; Carpenter v. O'Dougherty, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 397; s. c., 2 T. & C. (N. Y.) 427, aff'd 58 N. Y. 681; O'Dougherty v. Remington Paper Co., 81 N. Y. 496; Remington Paper Co. v. O'Dougherty, 81 N. Y. 474; Kittle v. Van Dyck, I Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 76; Woodruff v. Depue, 14 N. J. Eq. (1 McCart.) 168, 176; Miller v. Henderson, 10 N. J. Eq. (2 Stockt.) 320; Overall v. Ellis, 32 Mo. 322; Brunette v. Shettler, 21 Wis. 188. A Person Holding a Mortgage as Collateral security may foreclose. Bard v. Poole, 12 N. Y. 495, 507; Bloomer v. Sturges, 58 N. Y. 168; Carpenter v. O'Dougherty, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 397; S. C., 2 T. & C. (N. Y.) 427, aff'd in 58 N. Y. 681; Dalton v. Smith, 86 N. Y. 176; Bush v. Lathrop, 22 N. Y. 535; Whitney v. McKinney, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 144; Lehman v. McQueen, 65 Ala. 570; Hunter v. Levan, 11 Cal. 11; Beers v. Hawley, 3 Conn. 110; Wilson v. Fatout, 42 Ind. 52; St. John v. Freeman, I Ind. 84; Compton v. Jones, 65 Ind. 117; Rice v. Dillingham, 73 Me. 59; Cutts 7. York Mfg. Co., 14 Me. 326; s. c., 18 Me. 190; Brown v. Tyler, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 135; Graydon v. Church, 7 Mich. 36, 50, 68; Natchez v. Minor, 17 Miss. (9 Smed. & M.) 544; Paige v. Chapman, 58 N. H. 333; Chew v. Brumagen, 21 N. J. Eq. (6 C. E. Gr.) 520, 529; s. c., 80 U. S. (13 Wall.) 497; bk. 20 L. ed. 663; Wilson v. Giddings, 28 Ohio St. 554; Carpenter v. O'Dougherty, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 397; Salmon v. Allen, 11 Hun (N. Y.), 29; McCrum v. Corby, 11 Kan. 464; Underhill v. Atwater, 22 N. J. Eq. (7 C. E. Gr.) 16; Ackerson v. Lodi Branch R., 28 N. J. Eq. (1 Stew.) 542; Van Deventer v. Stiger, 25 N. J. Eq. (10 C. E. Gr.) 224; Kamena v. Huelbig, 23 N. J. Eq. (8 C. E. Gr.) 78. Owner of Equitable Interest of any kind is usually entitled to foreclose. Meeker, 23 Conn. 594: Wooden v. Haviland, 18 Conn. 107; Irish v. Sharp, 89 Ill. 261; N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. § 448; Beebe 7. Morris. 56 Ala. 525. Hill v. Equitable Assignees.-A purchaser at a defective foreclosure becomes an equitable assignee of the mortgage, and may maintain a second or strict forclosure to extinguish junior liens; and for this purpose is entitled to an action de novo on the mortgage. Bolles v. Duff, 43 N. Y. 469; Robinson v. Ryan, 25 N. Y. 320; Franklyn v. Hayward, 61 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 43; Stewart v. Hutchinson, 29 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 181; Taylor v. Agricultural & M. Assoc., 68 Ala. 229; Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Cal. 461; Muir v. Berkshire, 52 Ind. 149; Shimer v. Hammond, 51 Iowa, 401; Johnson v. Robertson, 34 Md. 165; Shaw v. Heisey, 48 Iowa, 468; Wilcoxson v. Osburn, 77 Mo. 621: Jones v. Mack, 53 Mo. 147; Bank of Wis. . Abbott, 20 Wis. 570; Moore v. Cord, 14 Wis. 213; Stark v. Brown, 12 Wis. 572; Rogers v. Holyoke, 14 Minn. 220. A Person Who Advances Money to Pay Off a Mortgage, or loans money on a mortgage, thereby becomes an equitable assignee of such mortgage. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 39 Iowa, 657; Bank v. Campbell, 2 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 179; Patterson v. Birdsall, 64 N. Y. 294, 298, affirming s. c., 6 Hun (N. Y.), 632; Miller v. Winchell, 70 N. Y. 437 An Equitable Owner by Subrogation may foreclose. See Ayers v. Adams, 82 Ind. 109; Lovejoy v. Vose, 73 Me. 46; Cobb v. Dyer, 69 Me. 494; Youngman 7. Elimra & W. R., 65 Pa. St. 278; Marshall v. Davis, 78 N. Y. 415, reversing 16 Hun (N. Y.), 606; Calvo v. Davis, 73 N. Y. 211, 215; Wadsworth v. Lyon, 93 N. Y. 201; Wood v. Smith, 51 Iowa, 156; Strause v. Josephthal, 77 N. Y. 622; Green Marble, 37 Iowa, 95; Andrews v. McDaniel, 68 N. C. 385. 7. Surety May Foreclose Where He Has Guaranteed the Mortgage Debt.-Norton v. Soule, 2 Me. (2 Greenl.) 341; Mims v. McDowell, 4 Ga. 182; Saylors v. Saylors, Heisk. (Tenn.) 525; Darst v. Bates, 95 Ill. 493; Gerber v. Sharp, 72 Ind. 554; Walker v. King, 44 Vt. 601. Where He Has Assumed Mortgage.-See McLean v. Towle, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 117; Risk v. Hoffman, 69 Ind. 137; Hoffman v. Risk, 58 Ind. 113; Josselyn v. Edwards, 57 Ind. 212; Wood v. Smith, 51 Iowa, 156; Hoysradt v. Holland, 50 N. H. 433; Baker v. Terrell, 8 Minn. 195; Johnson v Zink, 51 N. Y. 333, affirming 52 Barb. (N.Y.) 396; Matteson v. Thomas, 41 Ill. 110; Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 44, 51; Marshall v. Davies, 78 N Y. 414, 421; s. c., 58 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 231; Marsh v. Pike, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 595; Calvo v. Davies, 73 N. Y. 211, 215; Cherry 7. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 618; Stebbins v. Hall, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 525; Cornell v. Prescott, 2 Barb. (N. Ý.) 16; Ferris v. Crawford, 2 Den. (N. Y.) 595; Tice v. Annin. 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 125; Halsey v. Reed, 9 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 446; |