337 Holbrook v. Dickenson, 56 111. 497. As to who are bona fide purchasers, see Fetter, Eq. 95.

338 Martin v. Jackson, 27 Pa. St 504; Hulett v. Insurance Co., 114 Pa. St. 142, 6 Atl. 554; Porter v. Greene, 4 Iowa, 571; Kesner v. Trigg, 98 U. S. 50; Sheffey v. Bank, 33 Fed. 315.

339 Boxheimer v. Gunn, 24 Mich. 372. But he is a purchaser if he releases some valuable right, such as a vendor's lien, Lane v. Logue, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 681; or gives an extension of time, Koon v. Tramel, 71 Iowa, 132, 32 N. W. 243; Cary v. White, 52 N. Y. 138; Gilchrist v. Gough, 63 Ind. 576.

340 Young v. Guy, 87 N. Y. 457.

341 Campbell v. Freeman, 99 Cal. 546, 34 Pac. 113; Merchants' & Farmers' Bank v. Hervey Plow Co., 45 La. Ann. 1214, 14 South. 139. Cf. Bowen v. Rat-cliff, 140 Ind. 393, 39 N. E. 860. But see Fuller v. Griffith (Iowa) 60 N. W. 247; Savings & Loan Soc. v. Burnett (Cal) 37 Pac. 180.

A judgment creditor is not a purchaser, under the registry acts,347 unless the statute expressly so provides.348 When there is no such provision, a judgment, as against a prior unrecorded mortgage, will bind only the equity of redemption.349 A purchaser at an execution sale, without notice of a prior mortgage, takes the land free from such mortgage.350 In most states a purchase-money mortgage 351 takes priority over all previous conveyances and judgment liens.352 But, to have this effect, it must be part of the same trans342 Reynolds v. Webster, 71 Hun, 378, 24 N. T. Supp. 1133; Bank of Oroville v. Lawrence (Oal.) 37 Pac. 936.

343 Simons v. Bank, 93 N. Y. 269.

344 Frye v. President, etc., 11 11l 367; Hall v. Crouse, 13 Hun (N. Y.) 557; Todd v. Outlaw, 79 N. C. 235; Savings & Loan Soc. v. Burnett, 106 Cal. 514, 39 Pac. 922.

345 Brinkmeyer v. Helbling, 57 Ind. 435; Moroney's Appeal, 24 Pa. St. 372.

346 Nelson's Heirs v. Boyce, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 401; Bedford v. Backhouse, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 615, pl 12; Morecock v. Dickins, 1 Amb. 678.

347 Jackson v. Dubois, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 216; Cover v. Black, 1 Pa. St. 493; Pixley v. Hugglns, 15 Cal. 128; Bell v. Evans, 10 Iowa, 353; Righter v. Forrester, 1 Bush (Ky.) 278. Contra, Dutton v. Mcreynolds, 31 Minn. 66, 16 N. W. 468. And see Van Thorniley v. Peters, 26 Ohio St. 471.

348 1 stim. Am. St. Law, § 1611 A (2). Where a mistake in omitting property from a mortgage is reformed, the lien of a mortgage on the omitted property is superior to that of a judgment obtained after the execution of the mortgage, and before its reformation. Phillips v. Roquemore, 96 Ga, 719, 23 S. E. 855.

349 And the rule is the same when the judgment is against an heir to whom the land has descended. Voorhis v. Westervelt, 43 N. J. Eq. 642, 12 Atl. 533.

350 Mcfadden v. Worthington, 45 111. 362; Jackson v. Chamberlain, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 620; Morrison v. Funk, 23 Pa. St. 421; Ehle v. Brown, 31 Wis. 405. But see, for some limitations on this rule, a full discussion of creditors' rights under the registry laws in 2 Dembitz, Land Tit 992.

351 See ante, p. 85.

352 By statute in some states, 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1864; and without statute in others, Roane v. Baker, 120 111. 308, 11 N. E. 246; Curtis v. Root 20 111

Real Prop.-15 action as the deed of conveyance.353 Such a mortgage must be recorded, the same as any other, in order to have priority over subsequent conveyances. A mortgagee under an absolute deed, with a separate defeasance, is protected by the record of the deed, without a record of the defeasance.354 An assignee of a mortgage is protected as a purchaser.355 The record of the assignment of a mortgage is not constructive notice to the mortgagor, and payments made by him to the mortgagee, without actual notice, are protected.356 It is otherwise when the mortgage is to secure a negotiable note.357 And the record of an assignment of a mortgage is notice to subsequent purchasers of the equity of redemption.358

When the mortgagee has assigned the mortgage, and then wrongfully discharges it of record, the cases are conflicting as to whether subsequent purchasers from the mortgagor are protected against the assignee of the mortgage.359 But they are in states where the

64; Phelps v. Fockler, 61 Iowa, 340, 14 N. W. 729, 16 N. W. 210; Rogers v. Tucker, 94 Mo. 346, 7 S. W. 414. Such mortgage may be to a third person who advances the purchase money. Jackson v. Austin, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 477; Lald-ley v. Aiken, 80 Iowa, 112, 45 N. W. 384; Jones v. Tainter, 15 Minn. 512 (Gil. 423). But see Stansell v. Roberts, 13 Ohio, 149; Heuisler v. Nickum, 38 Md. 270.

353 Foster's Appeal, 3 Pa. St 79; Cake's Appeal, 23 Pa. St 186; Banning v. Edes, 6 Minn. 402 (Gil. 270).

354 Short v. Caldwell, 155 Mass. 57, 28 N. B. 1124; Jackson v. Ford, 40 Me. 381. But in some states, by statute, the defeasance must be recorded, or the mortgagee takes no interest under the mortgage. 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1860 A.

355 Bank of Ukiah v. Petaluma Sav. Bank, 100 Cal. 590, 35 Pac. 170.

356 Foster v. Carson, 159 Pa. St. 477, 28 Atl. 356; Ely v. Scofield, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 330; Hubbard v. Turner, 2 Mclean, 519, Fed. Cas. No. 6,819. It is so by statute in some states. 1 Stim. Am. St.. Law, § 1870; 1 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 480.

357Murphy v. Barnard, 162 Mass. 72, 38 N. E. 29; Mulcahy v. Fenwick, 161 Mass. 164, 36 N. E. 689; Biggerstaff v. Marston, 161 Mass. 101, 36 N. E. 785; Baumgartner v. Peterson (Iowa) 62 N. W. 27; Eggert v. Beyer, 43 Neb. 711, 62 N. W. 57; Stark v. Olsen, 44 Neb. 646, 63 N. W. 37. But see Vann v. Mar-bury, 100 Ala. 438, 14 South. 273.

358 Brewster v. Carnes, 103 N. Y. 556, 9 N. E. 323; Eggert v. Beyer, 43 Neb. 711, 62 N. W. 57.

359The weight of authority holds that they are. Ogle v. Turpin, 102 III. 148; Lewis v. Kirk, 28 Kan. 497. But see, contra, Lee v. Clark, 89 Mo. 553, assignment of a mortgage must be recorded.360 And such a discharge is not good, in favor of one who took his interest before the discharge was entered of record.361 When the holder of the mortgage is dead, payment must be made to his personal representative, who is the proper one to enter satisfaction.362