56. Richardson v. Cambridge, 2 Allen (Mass.) 118, 79 Am. Dec. 767; Ormsby v. Barr, 21 Mich. 474; Johnson v. Nations, 26 Miss. 147; Smith v. Smith, 15 N. H. 55; sumed in the case of a debt so secured, as of other debts, from the mere lapse of a period of twenty years from the time at which the debt became due.57

-Payment at maturity. Even by the strict principles of the common law, the payment of the sum named in the mortgage, or other compliance with the terms of the condition therein, if made at the time named therein, operates to terminate the right of the mortgagee, and the absolute title becomes revested in the mortgagor, upon entry by him, without any reconveyance or other act on the part of the mortgagee,58 except when, as is the practice at the present day in England, the mortgage expressly provides for the making of a reconveyance.

In equity, and in those states in which the equitable theory of mortgages has been adopted, the payment of the mortgage debt at maturity, by a person whose duty it is to pay it, necessarily extinguishes the lien.59

- Payment before maturity. In the case of a debt secured by mortgage, as in the case of any other debt,60"70 the debtor has no right to insist upon making payment before the maturity of the debt,71 even though he tenders the principal and also the interest calculated up to the time of maturity.72 If payment is

Braman v. Bingham, 26 N. Y. 483; Mynes v. Mynes, 47 W. Va. 681. 35 S. E. 935.

57. Post, Sec. 649, note 60.

58. Litt, Sec.Sec. 333, 334; 4 Kent's Comm. 193; Stewart v. Crosby, 50 Me. 130; Merrill v. Chase, 3 Allen (Mass.) 339; Grover v. Flye, 5 Allen (Mass.) 543; Crowley v. Adams, 226 Mass. 582, 116 N. E 241; McNair v. Picotte, 33 Mo. 57; Perkins' Lessee v. Dibble, 10 Ohio, 433.

59. Mullins v. Greer, 145 Ky.

121, 140 S. W. 35; Brown v. Hall, 32 S. D. 225, 142 N. W. 854.

60-70. See cases cited, 22 Am. & Eng. Encyclopedia Law 530.

71. Brown v. Cole, 14 Sim. 427, 9 Jur. 290; Smiddy v. Grafton, 163 Cal. 16, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 921, 124 Pac. 433; Weldon v. Tallman, 67 Fed. 9S6; Bowen v. Julius, 141 Ind. 310, 50 N. E. 700; Moore v. Kime, 43 Neb. 517, 61 N. W. 736; Pyross v. Fraser, 82 S. C. 498, 64 S E. 407.

72. Brown v. Cole, 14 Sim. 429, so made with the consent of the mortgage creditor, the effect in discharging the mortgage lien is the same as if made at maturity.73 But if the debt secured is evidenced by a negotiable note, payment of the note before maturity, though it is effective as between the parties, is no defense as against a bona fide purchaser of the note for value.74

-Payment after default. At common law, since, by the breach of condition, an absolute estate became vested in the mortgagee, a payment after maturity, that is, after default, although accepted by the mortgagee, could not revest the legal title in the mortgagor, and a reconveyance or release was necessary for this purpose.75 This view has been accepted in some of the states in which the common-law theory of mortgages is adopted,76 though not in all.77 But even in jurisdictions in which the mere payment of the debt secured after maturity is not regarded as revesting the legal title in the mortgagor, such title cannot, it has been held, after such payment, be utilized for the pur9 Jur. 290; Abbe v. Goodwin, 7 Conn. 377.

73. Co. Litt. 212b; Burgaine v. Spurling, Cro. Car. 283; Holman v. Bailey, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 55; Elye v. Berry, 181 Mass. 442, 63 N. E. 1071.

74. Morley v. Culverwell, 7 Mees. & W. 174; Watson v. Wy-man, 161 Mass. 96, 36 N. E. 692.

75. Litt. Sec. 332; 4 Kent's Comm. 193. Reading on Mortgages, by Judge Trowbridge, 8 Mass. 551, 553, 558.

76. Phelps v. Sage, 2 Day (Conn.) 151; Doton v. Russell, 17 Conn. 146; Stewart v. Crosby, 50 Me. 130; Parsons v. Welles, 17 Mass. 419; Smith v. Doe, 26 Miss. 291; Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J.

L. 496, 3 Am. Rep. 256; Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 519, 536, 19 L. Ed. 1002.

77. Morgan's Lessee v. Davis, 2 Har. & Mc.H. (Md.) 917; Brown v Stewart, 56 Md. 430; Perkins' Lessee v. Dibble, 10 Ohio, 433; Schilling v. Darmody, 102 Tenn. 439, 73 Am. St. Rep. 892, 52 S. W. 291. In some states, payment has, by statute, the effect of revesting title in the mortgagor, without reference to whether it is made before or after maturity. See Maxwell v. Moore, 95 Ala. 166, 36 Am. St. Rep. 190, 10 So. 444. Hussey v. Fisher, 94 Me. 301, 47 Atl. 525; Griffin v. Lovell. 42 Miss. 402; Swett v. Horn, 1 N. H. 332.

Pose of foreclosing the mortgage or depriving the mortgagor of the possession of the land.78

Even though the payment of the debt secured after maturity does not of itself revest the legal title in the mortgagor, such payment extinguishes the mortgage in the view of a court of equity,79 except when the mortgage lien is regarded as still existing for the protection of the person makng the payment, on the principle of subrogation.80 And so, in those states which have adopted the equitable or lien theory of mortgages, the payment of the debt after default ordinarily extinguishes the lien, and there being no title or estate in the mortgagee, no act on his part is necessary to free the land from all claim by him.81

In states in which the legal title is vested in the mortgagee, or in case a conveyance in terms of the legal title to the land is made for purposes of security, a court of equity will, upon payment of the debt after as before maturity, require the mortgagee to reconvey the legal title.82

-Payment in exoneration of land. In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, or a different intention apparent from the will, the heir or devisee may require the executor or administrator to pay off a mortgage on the land securing a debt for which the deceased was personally liable, the theory being that it was the personal estate which received the benefit from the creation of the debt, and that it

78. Robinson v. Cross, 22 Conn. 171; Stewart v. Crosby, 50 Me. 130; Wade v. Howard, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 289; Baker v. Gavitt, 128 Mass. 93; Harrison v. Eldridge, 7 N. J. Law, 392, 407; Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J. L. 496, 3 Am. Rep. 256.