Act to explain.

Mortgage of equity of redemption.

(b) Stat. 30 & 31 Vict. c. 69.

(c) Sect. 1.

(d) Sect. 2.

(e ) Stat. 4 & 5 Will. & Mary, c. 16, s. 3; sec Kennard v. Fut-voye, 2 Giff. 81.

Tacking.

Mortgage for future debts.

(f) Stat. 4 & 5 Will. & Mary, c. 16, s. 4.

(g) Jones v. Jones, 8 Sim. 633; Wiltshire v. Rabbits, 14 Sim. 76; Wilmot v. Pike, 5 Hare, 14.

(h) Goddard v. Complin, 1 Cha. Ca. 119.

(i) Brace v. Duchess of Marl-borough,2~P.V?ws.J\; Bates v. Johnson, Johnson, 304.

It was formerly a rule of equity that a solicitor could not take from his client a mortgage to secure future costs, lest he should be tempted on the strength of it to run up a long bill (l). This illiberal rule has now been abolished by the Attorneys' and Solicitors' Act, 1870 (m), which provides (n), that an attorney or solicitor may take security from his client for his future fees, charges and disbursements, to be ascertained by taxation or otherwise.

There is one case in which the rules of equity singularly and, as the writer thinks, unduly favour the mortgagee. If one person should mortgage lands to another for a sum of money, and subsequently mortgage other lands to the same person for another sum of money, the mortgagee is placed by the rules of equity in the same favourable position as if the whole of the lands had been mortgaged to him for the sum total of the money advanced. The mortgagor cannot redeem either mortgage without also redeeming the other; and the mortgagee may enforce the payment of the whole of the principal and interest due to him on both mortgages out of the lands comprised in either. This rule, known as the doctrine of consolidation of securities, has been extended to the case of mortgages of different lands made to different persons by the same mortgagor becoming vested by assignment in the same mortgagee, even when the equities of redemption of the different lands have become vested in different persons (o). It follows, therefore, that no person can safely lend money on a second mortgage. For, in addition to the risk of some third mortgagee getting in and tacking the first mortgage ( p), there is this further danger, that if the mortgagor should have mortgaged some other estate to some other person for more than its value, the holder of the deficient security may take a transfer of the first mortgage, and, consolidating his own security with it, exclude the second mortgagee. The purchaser of an equity of redemption is exposed to similar risks. Hence, it follows, that, in the words of an eminent judge, " it is a very dangerous thing at any time to buy equities of redemption or to deal with them at all" (q).

Future advances.

Future costs.

New enactment.

Effect of two mortgages by the same person.

Consolidation of securities.

(k) Rolt v. Hophkinson, L. C, 4 Jur., N. S. 1119; S. C. 3 De Gex & Jones, 177, affirmed in the H. of L. 9 W. R. 900; S. C. 9 II. of L. Cas. .514; overruling Gordon v. Graham, 7 Vin. Ab. 52, pl. 3.

(l) Jones v. Tripp, Jacob, 322.

(m) Stat. 33 & 34 Vict. c. 28,

(n) Sect. It:.

(o) Vint v. Padget, 2 De Gex & Jones, 611. (p) Ante, p. 420.

(q) Beevor v. Luck, V.-C. W., L. R., 4 Eq. 537, 549.