An equitable mortgage does not refer to the mortgage of an equitable interest, but to instruments having the effect of mortgages, which are recognized only in equity. An absolute deed with a parol

64 Horbaeh v. Hill, 112 U. S. 144, 5 Sup. CL 81; Hughes v. Sheaff, 19 Iowa, 335; Davis v. Stonestreet, 4 Ind. 101; Smith v. Crosby, 47 Wis. 160, 2 N. W. 104; Henley v. Hotaliug, 41 Cal. 22.

65 Rue v. Dole, 107 111. 275; Kraemer v. Adelsberger, 122 N. Y. 467, 25 N. E. 859; Bridges v. Linder, 60 Iowa, 190, 14 N. W. 217.

66 Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U. S. 17, 13 Sup. Ct. 738; Flagg v. Munn, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 4(j7; Hanford v. Blessing, 80 111. 188.

67 Baker v. Thrasher, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 493; Macauley v. Porter, 71 N. Y. 173.

68 Morrison v. Brand, 5 Daly (N. Y.) 40.

69 Shillaber v. Robinson, 97 U. S. 68; Southern Pac. R, Go. v. Doyle, 11 Fed. 253; Mclane v. Paschal, 47 Tex. 366. The trustee is the agent of both parties, and so must be impartial. Peninsular Iron Co. v. Eells, 15 C. C. A. 189, 68 Fed. 24; Sherwood v. Saxton, 63 Mo. 78. Cf. Moran v. Hagerman, 12 C. C. A. 239, 64 Fed. 499.

70 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1770.

71 Woodruff v. Robb, 19 Ohio, 212; Crosby v. Huston, 1 Tex. 203.

§ 114) defeasance, which has been considered, is one of these.72 Equitable mortgages must satisfy the same requisites as to execution and recording as other mortgages.73 An agreement to mortgage is, in equity, treated as a mortgage, on the principle that equity treats that as done which ought to be done.74 But, to have this effect, some specific property to be mortgaged must be designated.75 The agreement, however, need not be in writing, if there is sufficient part performance to satisfy the statute of frauds.76 It is not necessary that the estate conveyed by a mortgage be a legal one. A mere equitable interest may pass and be sufficient.77

An informal mortgage-that is, one invalid at law by reason of some defect in execution-is sometimes made effective as a mortgage in equity.78 An assignment of rents as a security is regarded as an equitable mortgage, since a mortgage of such rents would in fact be an assignment of them.79 The same is true of a power to collect rents.80 Another form of equitable mortgage is an assignment of a contract to purchase,81 or of a bond to convey.82 Such assignment may be valid as a mortgage, even though the conveyance is dependent on the performance of a condition,83 and the vendor and vendee cannot subsequently rescind the contract 84 Every such assignment carries whatever interest the mortgagor has.85

72 1 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 162.

73 New Vienna Bank v. Johnson, 47 Ohio St. 306, 24 N. E. 503.

74 See Fetter, Eq. 25; Ex parte Howe, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 125; Osgood v. Osgood, 78 Mich. 290, 44 N. W. 325; Ott's Ex'x v. King, 8 Grat. (Va.) 224.

75Langley v. Vaughn, 10 Heisk. (Term.) 553; Adams v. Johnson, 41 Miss 258; Price v. Cutts, 29 Ga. 142.

76 Baker v. Baker, 2 S. D. 261, 49 N. W. 1064; Burdick v. Jackson, 7 Hui; (N. Y.) 488.

77 Gale's Ex'rs v. Morris, 29 N. J. Eq. 222; New Vienna Bank v. Johnson, 47 Ohio St. 306, 24 N. E. 503.

78 Central Trust Co. of New York v. Bridges, 6 C. C. A. 539, 57 Fed. 753; Gest v. Packwood, 39 Fed. 525; Abbott v. Godfroy's Heirs, 1 Mich. 179; Lake v. Doud, 10 Ohio, 415; Mcquie v. Peay, 58 Mo. 56; Daggett v. Rankin, 31 Cal. 322; Atkinson v. Miller, 34 W. Va. 115, 11 S. E. 1007; Frank v. Hicks (Wyo.) 35 Pac. 475.

79 Gest v. Packwood, 39 Fed. 525; Hulett v. Soullard, 26 Vt. 295.

80 Joseph Smith Co. v. Mcguinness, 14 B. I. 59.

81 Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U. S. 730, 8 Sup. Ct. 686; Fitzhugh v. Smith, 62 111. 486; Brockway v. Wells, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 617; Burrows v. Hovland, 40 Neb. 464, 58 N. W. 947.

82 See Baker v. Colony, 45 111. 264; Sinclair v. Armitage, 12 N. J. Eq. 174.

83 Curtis v. Buckley, 14 Kan. 449.

Same - Deposit of Title Deeds.

At common law, and at present in England, a valid mortgage may be made by the deposit of title deeds; the absence of the deeds, or any of them, being considered notice to subsequent purchasers that the owner's title was not perfect.86 This form of security, however, is recognized in only a few of our states,87 and it is quite inconsistent with our registry system.88 A deposit of title deeds, accompanied by a written memorandum, may, however, constitute an equitable mortgage.89

Same - Vendor's Lien

At common law, whenever there is a conveyance of land, and the purchase price is not paid, a lien arises in favor of the grantor.90 In some states it is held that such a lien does not exist,91 and in some

84 After notice to the vendor. 1 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 172.

85 Muehlberger v. Schilling (Sup.) 3 N. Y. Supp. 705.

86 l Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 179.

87 Rockwell v. Hobby, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 9; Jarvls v. Dutcher, 16 Wis. 307; Gale's Ex'rs v. Moms, 29 N. J. Eq. 222; Griffin v. Griffin, 18 N. J. Eq. 104; Hutzler v. Phillips, 26 S. C. 136, 1 S. E. 502; Hackett v. Reynolds, 4 R. I. 512; First Nat. Bank v. Caldwell, 4 Dill. 314, Fed. Cas. No. 4,798.

88 I Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1S5.

89 Luch's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 519; Edwards v. Trumbull, 50 Pa. St. 509.

90 2 Jones, Liens (2d Ed.) 1063; Shall v. Biscoe, 18 Ark. 142; Salmon v. Hoffman, 2 Cal. 138; Francis v. Wells, 2 Colo. 660; Wooten v. Bellinger, 17 Fla. 289; Moshier v. Meek, 80 111. 79; Keith v. Horner, 32 111. 524; Yaryan v. Shriner, 26 Ind. 364; Gropengether v. Fejervary, 9 Iowa, 163; Thornton v. Knox's Ex'r, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 74; Carr v. Hobbs, 11 Md. 285; Payne v. Avery, 21 Mich. 524; Duke v. Bulme, 16 Minn. 306 (Gil. 270); Dodge v. Evans, 43 Miss. 570; Bennett v. Shipley, 82 Mo. 448; Reese v. Kinkead, 18 Nev. 126, 1 Pac. 667; Herbert v. Sconeld, 9 N. J. Eq. 492; Smith v. Smith, 9 Abb. Prac. (N. S.) 420; Stafford v. Van Rensselaer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 316; Pease v. Kelly, 3 Or. 417; Kent v. Gerhard, 12 R. I. 92; Ross v. Whitson, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 50; Pinchain v. Collard, 13 Tex. 333; Willard v. Reas, 26 Wis. 540.

91 Godwin v. Collins, 3 Del. Ch. 189, affirmed 4 Houst. (Del.) 28; Simpson v. Mundee, 3 Kan. 172; Phllbrook v. Delano, 29 Me. 410; Ahrend v. Odiorne, 118 Mass. 261; Edminster v. Higgins, 6 Neb. 265; Wamble v. Battle, 3 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 182; Hiester v. Green, 48 Pa. St. 96; Wragg v. Comptroller General, 2 Desaus. Eq. (S. C. 509. In some states the question is unsettled. A.twood v. Vincent, 17 Con i. 575; Arlln v. Brown, 44 N. H. 102.

It has been abolished by statute.92 All subsequent purchasers through the grantee, who have notice of the lien, take the land subject thereto.93 Recitals in the vendor's deed that the purchase money is unpaid,94 and continued possession by the vendor, are held to be notice to such purchasers.95 A vendor's lien is not good against judgment creditors of the vendee, without notice.96 The vendor may waive his lien by acts which show an intention not to rely on it for security.97 Taking the vendee's note will not constitute a waiver, unless the note is negotiated.98 But it is waived by taking the note of the vendee with an indorser or guarantor,99 or other collateral security.100 So, too, it may be waived by express agreement.101 A vendor's lien cannot be reserved in favor of a third person who has paid the purchase price,102 nor in most states does it pass by assignment.103

92 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 1950.

93 And those who are not purchasers for value. Beal v. Harrington, 116 111. 113, 4 N. E. 664; Petry v. Ambrosher, 100 Ind. 510; Strohm v. Good, 113 Ind. 83, 14 N. E. 901; Webster v. Mccullough, 61 Iowa, 496, 16 N. W. 578; Thomas v. Bridges, 73 Mo. 530; Butterfield v. Okie, 36 N. J. Eq. 482.

94 De Cordova v. Hood, 17 Wall. 1; Daughaday v. Paine, 6 Minn. 443 (Gil. 304); Willis v. Gay, 48 Tex. 463; Mcrimmon v. Martin, 14 Tex. 318.

95 Melross v. Scott, 18 Ind. 250.

96 Allen v. Loring, 34 Iowa, 499; Webb v. Robinson, 14 Ga. 216; Gann v. Chester, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 205; Adams v. Buchanan, 49 Mo. 64; Bayley v. Green-leaf, 7 Wheat. 46; Hulett v. Whipple, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 224; Johnson v. Caw-thorn, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. (N. C.) 32. But see Poe v. Paxton's Heirs, 26 W. Va. 607; Lissa v. Posey, 64 Miss. 352, 1 South. 500; Lewis v. Caperton's Ex'r, 8 Grat. (Va.) 148; Bowman v. Faw, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 472.

97 Moshier v. Meek, 80 111. 79; Perry v. Grant, 10 R. I. 334.

98 White v. Williams, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 502; Garson v. Green, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 308; Warren v. Fenn, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 333; Aldridge v. Dunn, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 249; Baum v. Grigsby, 21 Cal 173.

99 Hazeltine v. Moore, 21 Hun (N. Y.) 355; Durette v. Briggs, 47 Mo. 356; Haskell v. Scott, 56 Ind. 564.

100 Orrick v. Durham, 79 Mo. 174; Avery v. Clark, 87 Cal. 619, 25 Pac. 919; Hunt v. Waterman, 12 Cal. 301.

101 Donovan v. Donovan, 85 Mich. 63, 48 N. W. 163; Mccarty v. Williams, 69 Ala. 174; Williams v. Mccarty, 74 Ala. 295.

102 Crane v. Caldwell, 14 111. 468; Nottes' Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 361; Brown v. Budd, 2 Ind. 442. But see Nichols v. Glover, 41 Ind. 24; Hamilton v. Gilbert, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 680.

103 Baum v. Grigsby, 21 Cal. 172; Webb v. Robinson, 14 Ga. 216; Keith v.

Seal Prop. -13

Same - Vendee's Lien

A vendee also has a lien before he acquires possession for the amount he has advanced.104 A subsequent grantee of the vendor takes the land subject to this lien, if he has notice of it105 The vendee, after notice of a conveyance by the vendor, must pay the balance of the purchase price to the second vendee, who is in fact an assignor of the vendor's rights; but if the vendee has no notice of such assignment, and pays the purchase price to the vendor, he is protected.106 The other incidents of the vendee's lien are practically the same as of the vendor's lien.107