If it be supposed that the mortgagee undertakes to pay the mortgage, the question then arises can this undertaking be sued upon only by the mortgagor to whom it was made, or does the mortgagee acquire a right to enforce it. In England,40 Ireland,41 and Canada,42 such a promise gives the mortgagee no right. But the only one of the United States where it has definitely been decided that the mortgagee cannot proceed against the grantee is Massachusetts.43 Of the other jurisdictions which

38 The grantee is under no personal obligation unless he assumes or agrees to pay the mortgage. Shepherd v. May, 115 U.S. 505, 6 S. Ct, Rep. 119, 29 L. Ed. 456; Hibemia S. & L. Soc. v. Dickinson, 107 Cal. 616, 140 Pac. 265; Lloyd v. Lowe (Colo.), 165 Pac. 609; Hubbard v. Ensign, 46 Conn. 576; Raffel v. Clark, 87 Conn. 567, 89 Atl. 184; Lippitt v. Thames L. & T. Co., 88 Conn. 185,90 Atl. 309; Bristol Sar. Bank v. Stiger, 86 Ia. 344,53 N. W. 265; Fiske v. Tolman, 124 Mass. 254, 26 Am. Rep. 659; Chilton v. Brooks, 72 Md. 554, 20 Atl. 125; Kerman v. Lee-per, 172 Mo. App. 236, 157 S. W. 984; Lawrence v. Towle, 59 N. H. 28; Klapworth v. Dressier, 2 Bess. Ch. 62, 79 Am. Dec. 09; Equitable Life Assur. Soc.v. Bostwick, 110 N. Y. 628,3 N. E. 290; Keller v. Lee, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 184, 72 N. Y. 8. 948; Henry v. Heggie, 163 N. C. 623, 79 S. E. 982; Van Eman v. Mosing, 36 Okla. 555, 129 Pac. 2.

39As to whether acceptance of a deed containing a statement that the grantee assumes a mortgage is conclusive proof of such assumption, see supra, Sec.90.

40Tweddell v. Tweddell, 2 Bro. Ch. 152; Oxford v. Rodney, 14 Ves. 417; Barhsm v. Thanet, 3 M. & K. 607; Re Errington, [1894] 1 Q. B. 11; Bonner v. Tottenham Society, [1899] 1 Q. B. 161.

41Barry v. Harding, 1 Jones ft Lat. 475, 485.

42Aldous p. Hicks, 21 Ont. 95; Frontenac Loan Co. v. Hysop, 21 Out. 577. See also Williams p. Balfour, 18 Can. S. C. 472. Re Cosier, 24 Grant, 537, contra, is overruled.

43 Mellen v. Whipple, 1 Gray, 817; Pettee v. Peppard, 120 Man. 522, 523; Prentice v. Brimhall, 123 Mass. 291; Coffin v. Adams, 131 Mass. 133; Rise v. Sanders, 152 Mass. 108, 24 N. E. 1079, 8 L. R. A. 315; Creesy v. Willis, do not accept the doctrine of Lawrence v. Fox, Connecticut 44 and Michigan45 have statutes which cover the case; the United States Supreme Court,46 North Carolina47 and Vermont,48 give equitable relief on substantially the principles herein advocated; and if the attitude of the Maryland and Pennsylvania courts towards this class of cases is inconsistent with their general rule governing promises to a debtor to pay his debt they are not deterred on that account from giving the mortgagee relief.49

159 Man. 249, 34 N. E. 266. No attempt seems to have been made in Massachusetts to enforce the mortgagee's claim by a bill in equity against the mortgagor and his grantee. Apparently it is assumed that no relief would be granted. In Rice p. Sanders it is said that the grantee's promise "gave no additional rights to the mortgagee." The language of the court, however, in Forbes v. Thorpe, 209 Mass. 570,.95 N. E. 9S5, 969, quoted supra, Sec. 364, n. 48, gives some reason to suppose that if the mortgage debt could not be collected from the mortgagor, a properly drawn bill in equity might make the grantee's promise to the mortgagor available as an asset of the latter.

44 Gen. Stat. (1902), Sec. 687; Morgan p. Randolph-Clowes Co., 73 Conn. 396, 398, 47 Atl. 658, 51 L. R. A. 653.

45Comp. Laws (1915), Sec.12680; Crawford c. Edwards, 33 Mich. 364; Miller v. Thompson, 34 Mich. 10; Taylor v. Whitmore, 36 Mich. 97; Carley v. Fox, 38 Mich. 387; Winana p. Wilkie, 41 Mich. 264, 1 N. W. 1049; Unger v. Smith, 44 Mich. 22, 6 N. W. 1069; Corning v. Burton, 102 Mich. 86, 62 N. W. 1040; Jehle p. Brooks, 112 Mich. 131, 70 N. W. 440; Terry v. Durand Land Co., 112 Mich. 666,71 N. W. 525. It is essential that the grantee and the mortgaged land be within the jurisdiction. Booth v. Connecticut Mut. life Ins. Co., 43 Mich. 299, 5 N. W. 381; Kollen p. Sooy, 172 Mich. 214, 137 N. W. 808.

46Bee infra, Sec.384.

47 See North Carolina derisions cited in this section, infra, n. 8.

48Lamoille County Sav. Ac. Co. p. Belden, 90 Vt. 536, 98 Atl. 1002.

49 In the following cases it was held that a mortgagee may sue at law a grantee of the mortgagor who assumes the mortgage.

Alabama. Orman v. North Alabama Co., 63 Fed. 460, 55 Fed. 18, 13 U. S. App. 216, 6 C. C. A. 22; People's Sav. Bank v. Jordan (Ala.), 76 So. 442.

Arizona. Johns v. Wilson, 180 U. S. 440, 446, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 445, 46 L. Ed. 613; Holmes p. Bennett, 14 Aria. 298, 127 Pac. 763.

Arkansas. Patton p. Adidas, 42 Ark. 197; Benjamin p. Birmingham, 60 Ark. 433, 8 S. W. 183; Felker p. Rice, 110 Ark. 70,161 S. W. 162; Nak-dimen p. Brazil 131 Ark. 144,198 S. W. 624.

California. Wormouth p. Hatch, 33 Cal. 121; Biddel p. Briuolara, 64 Cal. 364; Williams v. Naftager, 103 Cal. 438, 37 Pac. 411; Ahrord p. Spring Valley Gold Co., 106 Cal. 647, 40 Pac. 27; Tulare County Bank p. Madden, 100 Cal. 312, 41 Pac. 1092; Hopkins v. Warner, 109 Cal. 133, 41 Pac. 868; Roberts v. Fitsallen, 120 Cal. 482, 62 Pac. 818; Daniels p. Johnson, 129 Cal. 415,61 Pac. 1107, 79 Am. St. Rep. 123; Dodds p. Spring, 174 Calif. 412, 163 Pac. 351.

Colobado. Green v. Morrison, 5 Col. 18; Stuyvesant p. Western Mtge.