So it has been decided that if the assignment is not recorded, the assignee is bound by an agreement on the part of the assignor, with one who took a second mortgage, that such second mortgage should have priority, the second mortgagee being ignorant of the assignment. Parmenter v. Oakley, 69 Iowa, 388, 28 N. W. 653.

71. Northrup v. Reese, 68 Fla. 451, L. R. A. 1915F, 554, 67 So.

A discharge by one who has previously assigned the mortgage debt cannot enure to the benefit of one who purchased the property previous to such discharge, even though he has not notice of the assignment by record or otherwise. He did not make his purchase on the strength of such discharge.72

Though, as above stated, the assignor has no power to release the mortgage as against his assignee, it has been decided in one state that, if the assignment is not recorded and the assignor consequently appears on the records as the owner of the debt secured, he is bound to give the statutory release or satisfaction upon payment of the debt secured and is liable to the statutory penalty if he fails so to do on demand.73 And it has been decided, in that and another state, that in such case the assignee, not appearing on the records to have any interest in the mortgage debt, is_ not the person to give a satisfaction and is so not liable to the penalty for failing to give one.74 In other states, however, such an assignee has been regarded as under an obligation to execute a release or satisfaction on demand.75

136; Reeves v. Hayes, 95 Ind. 521; Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Huntington, 57 Kan. 744, 48 Pac. 19; Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322 37 Atl. 266; Lee v. Clark, 89 Mo. 533, 1 S. W. 142; Borgess Inv. Co. v. Vette, 142 Mo. 560, 64 Am. St. Rep. 567, 44 S. W. 754; James v. Morey, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 246, 14 Am. Dec. 475; Bamberger v. Geiser, 24 Ore. 203, 33 Pac. 609; W. C. Early Co. v. Williams, 135 Tenn. 249, L. R. A. 1916F, 418.

186 S. W. 102; Fischer v. Woodruff, 25 Wash. 67, 87 Am. St. Rep. 743, 64 Pac. 938. See Curtis v. Moore, 152 N. Y. 159, 57 Am. St. Rep. 506, 46 N. E. 168; Lynch v. Hancock, 14 S. C. 66; Howard v. Shaw, 10 Wash. 151, 38 Pac. 746. 71a. Ante, Sec. 641(h).

72. Roberts v. Halstead, 9 Pa. 32, 49 Am. Dec. 541; Girardin v. Lampe, 58 Wis. 267, 16 N. W. 614; Lynch v. Hancock, 14 S. C. 66.

73. Perkins v. Matteson, 40 Kan. 165, 19 Pac. 633.

- (e) Conclusiveness of release or satisfaction.

A satisfaction or release in terms of the mortgage, being in legal effect, in the ordinary case, merely a statement or acknowledgment that the debt has been discharged, is'not conclusive in that respect, and it may be shown, as against the owner of the land at the time, as well as against subsequent purchasers with notice,76 that the debt has not been actually discharged, and that the satisfaction or release was procured by fraud,77 or was executed for some limited purpose,78 or without the consent of the person beneficially interested in the mortgage debt.79 And so it may be shown that, the debt being still unpaid, the release or satisfaction was executed by mistake or inadvertence,80 or in ignorance .of the existence of a subsequent in74. Low v. Fox, 56 Iowa, 221, 9 N. W. 131; Thomas v. Reynolds, 29 Kan. 304. Contra, Daniels v. Densmore, 32 Neb. 40, 48 N. W. 906.

75. Ewing v. Shelton, 34 Mo. 518; Daniels v. Densmore, 32 Neb. 40, 48 N. W. 906.

76. Eldridge v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 3 MacArth. (Dist. Col.) 301; Farmers' Bank v. Butterfield, 100 Ind. 229; Ferguson v. Glassford, 68 Mich. 36, 35 N. W. 820; Whipple v. Fowler, 41 Neb. 675, 60 N. W. 15.

77. Eldridge v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 3 MacArth. (Dist. Col.) 301; Headley v. Goundry, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 279; Downing v. Hill, 165 Mich. 559, 130 N. W. 1115; Voris v. Ferrell, 57 Ind.

App. 1, 103 N. E. 122.

78. Wood v. Wood, 61 Iowa, 256, 16 N. W. 132; Martin v. Righter, 10 N. J. Eq. 510. See Hughes v. Torrence, 111 Pa. St. 611, 4 Atl. 825.

79. Matzen v. Shaeffer, 65 Cal. 81, 3 Pac. 92.

80. Stoeckle v. Rosenheim, 10 Del. Ch. 195, 87 Atl. 1006; Ettler v. Evans, 61 Ind. 56; Bruse v. Nelson, 35 Iowa, 157; Kent v. Bailey, 181 Iowa, 489, 164 N. W. 852; Willcox v. Foster, 132 Mass. 320; Short v. Currier, 153 Mass. 182, 26 N. E. 444; Institute Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Edwards, 81 N. J. Eq. 359, 86 Atl. 962; Moore v. Bond, 75 N. C. 243; Long v. Dufur, 58 Ore, 162, 113 Pac. 59; Taylor v. Godfrey, 62 W. Va. 677, 59 S. E. 631.

Oumbrance which would be thereby given priority.81 But it has been held that, as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser of the land, who takes on the strength of a release or satisfaction apparently valid and effective, it cannot be shown that it was obtained by fraud or executed by mistake or for some limited purpose.82 And so if a discharge of the mortgage upon the records is effected as a result of the negligence of the mortgagee in allowing the owner of the property to have the custody of the mortgage instrument or evidence of the debt,83 or if the conduct of the mortgagee otherwise conduces to mislead in this regard,84 a bona fide purchaser is ordinarily protected. If a transaction by way of compromise, by which the debt is sought to be discharged, is afterwards set aside for any reason, the debt is revived, and with it the mortgage lien.84a

But that mistake of law does not affect the conclusiveness of the release, see Ernett v. Wheeler, 109 Minn. 157, 123 N. W. 414.

81. Hanlon v. Doherty, 109 Ind. 37, 9 N. E. 782; Robinson v. Sampson, 23 Me. 388; Young v. Hill, 31 N. J. Eq. 429; Bell v. Woodward, 34 N. H. 90; Barnes v. Mott, 64 N. Y. 397, 21 Am. Rep. 625; Strehlow v. Fee, 36 N. D. 59, 161 N. W. 719; Kern v. A. P. Hotaling Co., 27 Ore. 205, 50 Am. St. Rep. 710, 40 Pac. 168; Borman v. Hatfield, 96 Wash. 270, 164 Pac. 270. But see Conner v. Welch, 51 Wis. 431, 8 N. W. 260, to the effect that the mortgage will not be restored if the mortgagee was negligent in not knowing of the subsequent incumbrance.

82. Wittenbrock v. Parker, 102 Cal. 93, 24 L. R. A. 197, 41 Am. St. Rep. 172, 36 Pac. 374; Lewis v. Hinman, 56 Conn. 55, 13 Atl. 143; Barco v. Doyle, 50 Fla. 488, 39 So. 103; McConnell v. American, Nat. Bank (Ind. App.) 103 N. E. 809; Sheldon v. Holmes, 58 Mich. 138, 24 N. W. 795; Bristow v. Thackston, 187 Mo. 332, 106 Am. St. Rep. 472, 86 S. W. 94; Rohm v. Alber, 272 Mo. 452, 199 S. W. 170; Heyder v. Excelsior Building & Loan Ass'n, 42 N. J. Eq. 403, 59 Am. Rep. 49, 8 Atl. 310; Charleston v. Ryan, 22 S. C. 339.

83. Heyder v. Excelsior Building & Loan Ass'n, 42 N. J. Eq. 403, 59 Am. Rep. 49, 8 Atl. 310; see Harrison v. N. J. R. R. & T. Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 488

84. Turner v. Flinn, 72 Ala. 532; Morris v. Beecher, 1 N. D. 130, 45 N. W. 696.

84a. Doe v. Pendleton, 15 Ohio St. 735; Heimstreet v. Burdick, 90 111. 444.

3 R. P.- 24