112. There are two theories as to the nature of a mortgage recognized in the different states: (a) The common-law theory regards a mortgage as an estate in land, and the mortgagee as the owner of the land.

153. As to description of the mortgage debt, see Burt v. Gamble, 98 Mich. 402, 57 N. W. 261; Dunham v. Provision Co., 100 Mich. 75, 58 N. W. 627; Commercial Bank v. Weinberg, 70 Hun, 597, 25 N. Y. Supp. 235; Price v. Wood, 76 Hun, 318, 27 N. Y. Supp. 691; Snow v. Pressey, 85 Me. 408, 27 Atl. 272; Gleason v. Kinney's Adm'r, 65 Vt 560, 27 Atl 208; D'oyly v. Capp, 99 Cal. 153, 33 Pac. 736.

7 Grape Creek Coal Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 12 C. C. A. 350, 63 Fed. 891; Alabama & G. Manuf'g Co. v. Robinson, 6 C. C. A. 79, 56 Fed. 690; Owen v. Association, 55 111. App. 347; Dunn v. Sharpe, 9 Misc. Rep. 636, 30 N. Y. Supp. 353; New York Security & Trust Co. v. Saratoga Gas & Electric Light Co., 88 Hun, 569, 34 N. Y. Supp. 890; Osborne v. Ketcham, 76 Hun, 325, 27 N. Y. Supp. 694; Atkinson v. Walton, 162 Pa. St 219, 29 Atl 898; Morling v. Brownson, 37 Neb. 608, 56 N. W. 205; Swearingen v. Lahner (Iowa) 61 N. W. 431; Taylor v. Trust Co., 71 Miss. 694, 15 South. 121. And see Weber v. Huerstel, 11 Misc. Rep. 214, 32 N. Y. Supp. 1109. Cf., however, French v. Row, 77 Hun, 380, 28 N. Y. Supp. 849. No notice of election is necessary. Brown v. Mckay, 151 111. 315, 37 N. E. 1037.

8 As to personal capacity, see post P. 38L

9 1 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 102.

10 1 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 131; Parker v. Lincoln, 12 Mass. 16. But see Thompson v. Holladay, 15 Or. 34, 14 Pac 725,

(b) The equitable or lien theory regards a mortgage as a mere security, and the mortgagee as having only a lien.