In accordance with the rules as to priorities stated above a subsequent mortgagee cannot gain priority over an earlier claim of which he had notice when he took his mortgage. The claims are not equal, that is equally meritorious, nor could the second mortgagee fairly be said to take in good faith. It is an elementary rule of equity that a purchaser or mortgagee takes subject to any earlier claim of which he has actual notice (0).

(l) Walker v. Linom, [1907] 2 Ch. 104, at p.p. 112 ff. (first mortgagee failing to enquire for the title deeds or failing to verify the truth of an excuse made for the mortgagor's not producing and handing over the title deeds).

(m) Pilcher v. Rawlins, 1872, L.R. 7 Ch. 259, 21 R.C. 728; Hobson v. Gorringe, [1897] 1 Ch. 182, 12 R.C. 208. A trustee in breach of trust bought land and mortgaged it to several innocent persons in succession. The first mortgage, having the legal estate, had priority over the claim of the cestuis que trust, but the latter had priority over the subsequent mortgagees because their mortgages were merely equitable. Cave v. Cave, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 639; cf. Coleman v. London, County and Westminster Bank, [1916] 2 Ch. 353, at pp. 359, 360.

(n) Oliver v. Hinton, [1899] 2 Ch. 264 (purchaser of legal estate failing to require production of title deeds postponed to prior equitable mortgagee by deposit of title deeds); cf. Walker v. Linom, [1907] 2 Ch. 104, cited in Sec. 63, supra; Berwick & Co. v. Price, [1905] 1 Ch. 632, at p. 640.