482, 63 Am. St. Rep. 460, 71 N. W. 538; Mann v. Jummel, 183 III. 523, 56 N. E. 161.

60. Stiger v. Bent, 111 111. App. 328; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Eldredge, 102 U. S. 545, 26 L. Ed. 245.

61. As in Missouri. See How-er v. Erwin, 221 Mo. 93, 119 S. W. 951.

62. Citizens Nat. Bank v. Williams, 100 Kan. 140, 163 Pac. 647.

63. Ante, Sec. 640(c).

64. Fassett v. Mulock. 5 Col. 466; Vandercook v. Baker, 48 Iowa, 199; Deniuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322, 37 Atl. 266; Cutler v. Haven, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 490; Ripley Nat. Bank v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 145 Mo. 142, 47 S. W.

1; Roberts v. Halstead, 9 Pa. St. 32, 49 Am. Dec. 541; Parker v. Randolph, 5 S. D. 549, 29 L. R. A. 33, 59 N. W. 722; Nash v. Kelley, 50 Vt. 425; Fischer v. Woodruff, 25 Wash. 67, 87 Am. St. Rep. 742, 64 Pac. 923; Gordon v. Mulhare, 13 Wis. 22. If the assignment was made as security for a debt, the payment of the debt obviously revests in the assignor the power to release. Seymour v. Laycock, 47 Wis. 272, 2 N. W. 297.

65. Fox v. Wray, 56 Ind. 423; Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Bush. 84 Iowa, 272, 50 N. W. 1063; Snyder v. Par-malee, 80 Vt. 496, 68 Atl. 649; Evans v. Roanoke Sav. Bank, 95 Va. 294, 28 S. E. 323.

It quite frequently happens that, after the assignor of the mortgage debt has undertaken, wrongfully, to give a satisfaction or release, in spite of having made the assignment, the property is conveyed or mortgaged by the mortgagor or his transferee to another person, who, without notice of the assignment, pays value under the supposition that the mortgage has been properly discharged by one having power to discharge it.67 The rights of such purchaser are ordinarily determined with reference to the recording laws, it being held in effect that, in the absence of actual notice, he has a right to assume that the person in whom the records show the title to the debt and mortgage to be is the person entitled to discharge them. That is, if an assignment is of record, the subsequent purchaser is charged with notice of the fact that the assignor had no power, after the assignment, to discharge the mortgage,68 while if no assignment appears of record, he may properly assume that the power to discharge the mortgage had not passed to another,69 unless he actually

66. Fassett v. Mulock, 5 Colo. 466; Willcox v. Foster, 132 Mass. 320; Gordon v. Mulhare, 13 Wis. 22.

67. No equity exists in favor of a bona-fide purchaser who does not pay value. Spicer v. First Nat. Bank, 170 N. Y. 562, 62 N. E. 1100.

68. Woodward v. Brown, 119 Cal. 283, 63 Am. St. Rep. 108, 51 Pac. 2, 542; Center v. Elgin City Banking Co., 185 111. 534, 57 N. E. 439; Indiana Bank v. Andersen, 14 Iowa, 544, 83 Am. Dec. 390; Lewis v. Kirk, 28 Kan. 497, 42 Am. Rep. 173; Hewell v. Coul-bourn, 54 Md. 59; Higglns v.

Jamesburg Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n, 67 N. J. Eq. 525, 58 Atl. 1078; Viele v. Judson, 82 N. Y. 32; Larned v. Donovan, 155 N. Y. 341, 49 N. E. 942.

69. Vann v. Marbury, 100 Ala. 438, 23 L. R. A. 325, 46 Am. St. Rep. 70, 14 So. 273; Summers v. Kilgus, 14 Bush (Ky.) 449; Ogle v. Turpin, 102 111. 148; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Talbot, 113 Ind. 373, 3 Am. St. Rep. 655, 14 N. E. 586; Quincy v. Gins-bach, 92 Iowa, 144, 60 N. W. 511 (release by sole beneficiay of mortgage); Fisher v. Cowles, 41 Kan. 418, 21 Pac. 228 (record of unacknowledged assignment); knows of an assignment.70 By some decisions, however, a different view has been adopted, that a subsequent purchaser could not claim to take free from the mortgage by reason of a release by the assignor, even though there was nothing on the records to show the assignment, and he had no notice otherwise thereof,71 this view being apparently based on the consideration, either that the formal assignment of a mortgage is not within the recording laws, or that the assignment in the particular case", being by a mere transfer of the debt, was incapable of record. Adopting such a view, an intending purchaser or mortgagee of premises which have previously been subjected to a mortgage mighl have difficulty, it seems, in satisfying himself as to the person entitled to release the mortgage, so as to secure absolute protection in this regard. Even that he requires the production of the notes evidencing the obligation secured by the mortgage might not render him entirely safe, since other notes may have been substituted for these, without affecting the existence of the obligation.71a

Peaks v. Dexter, 82 Me. 85, 19 Atl. 100; Swasey v. Emerson, 168 Mass. 118, 60 Am. St. Rep. 368, 46 N. E. 426; Foss v. Dullam, 111 Minn. 220, 126 N. W. 820; Cram v. Cotrell, 48 Neb. 646, 58 Am. St. Rep. 714, 67 N. W. 452; Bacon v Van Schoonhoven, 87 N. Y. 589; Henniges v. Paschke, 9 N. D. 489, 81 Am. St. Rep. 588, 84 N. W. 350; Swartz's Ex'rs v. Leist, 13 Ohio St. 419; Pickford v. Peebles, 7 S. D. 166, 63 N. W. 779; Henderson v. Pilgrim, 22 Tex. 464; Donaldson v. Grant, 15 Utah, 231, 49 Pac. 779; Torrey v. Deavitt, 53 Vt. 331; Seattle Nat. Bank v. Ally, 66 Wash. 610, 120 Pac. 94; Fallass v. Pierce, 30 Wis. 443; Friend v. Yahr, 126 Wis. 291, 1 L R. A. (N. S.) 891, 110 Am. St. Rep. 924, 104 N. W. 997; Marling v. Jones, 138 Wis. 82, 119 N. W. 931; Frank v. Snow, 6 Wyo. 42, 42 Pac. 484, 43 Pac. 78; see Wiscomb v. Cubberly, 51 Kan. 580, 33 Pac. 320. So in the case of release by trustee under deed of trust to secure notes, in which the payee joins, as against the assignee of the notes. Williams v. Jackson, 107 U. S. 478, 27 L. Ed. 529; Livermore v. Maxwell, 87 Iowa. 705, 55 N. W. 37; Evans v. Roanoke Sav. Bank, 95 Va. 294, 28 S. E. 323.

The joinder by the mortgagee, under such circumstances, in a subsequent conveyance by the mortgagor, has the same effect for this purpose as has an express release by him. Jenks v. Shaw, 99 Iowa, 604, 61 Am. St. Rop. 256, 68 N. W. 900.

70. Swift v. Smith, 102 U. S. 442, 26 L. Ed. 193; Passumpsic Sav. Bank v. Buck, 71 Vt. 190, 44 Atl. 93.