113. Any interest in realty -which is subject to sale and assignment may be mortgaged.

As stated in the black-letter text, any interest in realty which is subject to sale or assignment may be mortgaged.18 This interest may be either in possession or in expectancy.19 So there may be a mortgage of a bond for title,20 or of a right to possession under a contract for purchase,21 or of an option to purchase.22 A widow may mortgage her unassigned right of dower,23 and a devisee may mortgage land devised to him in which he has a vested interest.24 There may be a mortgage of a mortgage,25 of an equitable right,26 or of rents.27 A mortgage of land covers the buildings and fixtures thereon, and a mortgage of a building includes the land on which it stands.28 A mortgage may be made to cover subsequent improvements and future accessions,29 such as crops to be planted.30 So a mortgage may be given to cover after-acquired property,31 subject, of course, to liens which may exist on the property at the time it is acquired.32

In. E 169; Kircher v. Schalk, 39 N. J. Law, 335; Hemphill v. Ross, 66 N. C. 477; State v. Ragland, 75 N. C. 12; Allen v. Everly, 24 Ohio St 97; Rands v. Kendall, 15 Ohio, 671; Tryon v. Munson, 77 Pa. St. 250; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 6 R. I. 542; Henshaw v. Wells, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 568; Hagar v. Brain-erd, 44 Vt 294; Lull v. Matthews, 19 Vt 322; Faulkner's Adm'x v. Rrocken-brough, 4 Rand. (Va.) 245. Modifications of the common-law theory, holding that the mortgagor is owner until breach, exist in some states. Doe v. Tunnell, 1 Houst. (Del.) 320; Hill v. Robertson, 24 Miss. 368; Johnson v. Houston, 47 Mo. 227; Woods v. Hilderbrand, 46 Mo. 284.

16 Mcmillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 365; Dutton v. Warschauer, 21 Cal. 609; Mcmahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 698; Jordan v. Sayre, 29 Fla. 100, 10 South. 823; Vason v. Ball, 56 Ga. 268; Fletcher v. Holmes, 32 Ind. 497; Francis v. Porter, 7 Ind. 213; White v. Rittenmyer, 30 Iowa, 268; Chick v. Willetts, 2 Kan. 384; Woolley v. Holt, 14 Bush (Ky.) 788; Duclaud v. Rousseau, 2 La Ann. 168; Caruthers v. Humphrey, 12 Mich. 270; Adams v. Corriston, 7 Minn. 456 (Gil. 365); Gallatin Co. v. Beattie, 3 Mont 173; Kyger v. Ryley, 2 Neb. 20; Hurley v. Estes, 6 Neb. 386; Hyman v. Kelly, 1 Nev. 179; Jackson v. Wil-lard, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 41; Thompson v. Marshall, 21 Or. 171, 27 Pac. 957; Navassa Guano Co. v. Richardson, 26 S. C. 401, 2 S. E. 307; Wright v. Henderson, 12 Tex. 43; Wood v. Trask, 7 Wis. 566.

17 1 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 14.

18 Neligh v. Michenor, 11 N. J. Eq. 539; Miller v. Tipton, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 238; Dorsey v. Hall 7 Neb. 400. As to mortgages of homesteads, see ante, p. 124. That a pre-emption right under the United States homestead laws, cannot be mortgaged, see Penn v. Ott 12 La. Ann. 233; Gilbert v. Penn, Id. 235. Contra, Whitney v. Buckman, 13 Cal. 536.

19 Wilson v. Wilson, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 328; In re John and Cherry Sts., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 659.

20 Baker v. Colony, 45 111. 264; Crane v. Turner, 67 N. Y. 437.

21 Bull v. Shepard, 7 Wis. 449; Sinclair v. Armitage, 12 N. J. Eq. 174.

22 Bank of Louisville v. Baumeister, 87 Ky. 6, 7 S. W. 170.

23 Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Shipman, 119 N. Y. 324, 24 N. E. 177.

24 Drake v. Paige, 127 N. Y. 562, 28 N. E. 407. So an heir may mortgage his undivided interest. Carter v. Mcdaniel, 94 Ky. 564, 23 S. W. 507.

25 Murdock v. Chapman, 9 Gray (Mass.) 156; Cutts v. Manufacturing Co., 18 Me. 190.

26 Lincoln Bldg. & Sav. Ass'n v. Hass, 10 Neb. 581, 7 N. W. 327; Laughlin v. Braley, 25 Kan. 147; Wilson v. Wright, 91 Ga. 774, 18 S. E. 546.

27 Van Rensselaer v. Dennison, 35 N. Y. 393.

2 8 Wilson v. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683.

29 Mitchell v. Winslow, 2 Story, 630, Fed. Cas. No. 9,673; Smithurst v. Edmunds, 14 N. J. Eq. 408.

30 Van Hoozer v. Cory, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Arques v. Wasson, 51 Cal. 620; Jones v. Webster, 48 Ala. 109.

31 Thompson v. Railroad Co., 132 U. S. 68, 10 Sup. Ct. 29; Central Trust Co. v. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 414. 11 Sup. Ct. 357; Parker v. Railroad Co., 33 Fed. 693; Omaha & St L. Ry. Co. v. Wabash, St L. & P. Ry. Co., 108 Mo. 298, 18 S. W. 1101; Frank v. Hicks (Wyo.) 35 Pac. 1025. But see Harriman v. Light Co., 163 Mass. 85, 39 N. E. 1004; Cook v. Prindle (Iowa) 63 N. W. 187; Paddock v. Potter, 67 Vt 360, 31 Atl. 784; Grape Creek Coal Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 12 C. C. A. 350, 63 Fed. 891.

32 Wood v. Manufacturing Co., 100 Ala. 326, 13 South. 948. And see Hobbs v. Trust Co., 15 O. C. A. 604, 68 Fed. 618; Patterson v. Trust Co. (Ky.) 30 S. W. 872.