The sum which must be paid in order to redeem from a mortgage is the amount of the mortgage debt and interest still due.434 But money paid by the mortgagee in discharging a prior incumbrance, together with the costs thereby incurred, may be added to the amount of the mortgage,435 as may be also attorney's fees provided for in the mortgage,436 and insurance premiums.437 The mortgagee cannot be compelled to release a portion of the premises by payment of part of the sum due.438 When one who has not been made a party redeems, the entire amount of the mortgage debt must be paid, though the land has sold for less.439 By agreement of the parties, there may be a redemption of part of the premises only.440

425 Taylor t. Porter, 7 Mass. 355.

426 Frost v. Bank, 70 N. Y. 553; Sager v. Tupper, 35 Mich. 134; Lamb v. Jeffrey, 41 Mich. 719, 3 N. W. 204; Morse v. Smith, 83 I11 396. 427 Skinner v. Young, 80 Iowa, 234, 45 N. W. 889.

428 Rogers v. Herron, 92 111. 583.

429 phelan v. Fitapatrick, 84 Wis. 240, 54 N. W. 614; Posten v. Miller, 60 Wis. 494, 19 N. W. 540; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 618; Mccabe v. Bellows, 1 Allen (Mass.) 269, 7 Gray (Mass.) 148; Mcarthur v. Franklin, 16 Ohio St. 193. And see Campbell v. Ellwanger, 81 Hun, 259, 30 N. Y. Supp. 792.

430 Mccabe v. Bellows, 7 Gray (Mass.) 148.

431 Boynton v. Pierce, 151 111. 197, 37 N. E. 1024; Whitehead v. Hall, 148 I1l 253, 35 N. E. 871; Todd v. Johnson, 56 Minn. 60, 57 N. W. 320. But he cannot redeem a mortgage on a homestead when he has no lien thereon. Spurgin v. Adamson, 62 Iowa, 661, 18 N. W. 293.

432 Long v. Mellet (Iowa) 63 N. W. 190; Mcniece v. Eliason, 78 Md. 168, 27 Atl. 940.

433 Lloyd v. Hoo Sue, 5 Sawy. 74, Fed. Cas. No. 8,432.

434 Cowles v. Marble, 37 Mich. 158; Childs v. Childs, 10 Ohio St. 339. And see Shearer v. Field, 6 Misc. Rep. 189, 27 N. Y. Supp. 29; Gleason v. Kinney, 65 Vt 560, 27 Atl 208.

Sajne-Contribution to Redeem.

One who redeems by paying the whole of a debt, for which he is-liable for a part only, is entitled to contribution from those who are liable for the balance.441 Contribution is never enforced, except between those whose equities are equal.442 Therefore purchasers subsequent to a second mortgage cannot compel contribution against the second mortgagee, when the first mortgage is enforced against them.443 And a mortgagor who has conveyed with covenants of warranty, after he has paid the mortgage, cannot en435 Long v. Long, 111 Mo. 12, 19 S. W. 537. 436 Hosford v. Johnson, 74 Ind. 479.

437 Id.

438 Boqut v. Coburn, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 230; Merritt v. Hosmer, 11 Gray (Mass.) 276; Meacharn v. Steele, 93 111. 135; Knowles v. Rablin, 20 Iowa, 101. And see Commercial Bank v. Hiller (Mich.) 63 N. W. 1012; Norton v. Henry, 67 Vt 308, 31 Atl. 787. So as to redemption by joint owners. Ward v. Green (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 574.

439 Bradley v. Snyder, 14 111. 263; Martin v. Fridley, 23 Minn. 13; Hosford v. Jobnson, 74 Ind. 479; Johnson v. Harmon, 19 Iowa, 56.

440 Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 133 I11 368, 27 N. E. 91. In England, by what Is called the "doctrine of consolidation," one who owns several mortgages, though on different lands, and executed at different times, may compel a redemption of all of them by one seeking to redeem any one of them. This doctrine has been recognized In only a few American cases. 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1082. See Scripture v. Johnson, 8 Conn. 211; Bank of South Carolina v. Rose, 1 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 257. The English doctrine of tacking, by which the holder of a first and subsequent mortgage may cut out the rights of intervening mortgagees, is inconsistent with our registry system, and does not prevail in this country. 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1082.

441 Coffin v. Parker, 127 N. Y. 117, 27 N. E. 814; Stevens v. Cooper, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 425; Damm v. Damm, 91 Mich. 424, 51 N. W. 1069. But see Chase-v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 143.

442 Sanford v. Hill, 46 Conn. 42; Henderson v. Truitt, 95 Ind. 309.

443 Henderson v. Truitt, 95 Ind. 309.

Force contribution against his grantee.444 Where the mortgaged premises have been conveyed in separate parcels, the parcels are liable in the inverse order of their alienation.445 Between those who hold separate parts of mortgaged land by simultaneous conveyances, contribution is to be enforced according to the present value of the parcels, exclusive of the improvements placed thereon by the purchasers.446