(e) Protection of bona fide purchaser. A purchaser for value from the grantee in an absolute conveyance is not affected by the fact that it was intended to operate as a mortgage and is consequently subject to a right of redemption, unless he purchased with notice that it was so intended, while as against a purchaser with notice the grantor has the same right of redemption as he has against the grantee.28 In case the grantor loses his right of redemption, by reason of the sale of the property by the grantee to an innocent purchaser for value, he is entitled to an accounting by his grantee for the amount received by the latter less the amonnl of the debt secured,29 or, in some jurisdictions, to a judgment for damages measured by the difference be tween the value of the land and the amoimt of the debt.30

Pick. (Mass.) 467, 478; Gogarn v. Connors, 188 Mich. 161, 153 N. W. 1068; Gassert v. Bogk, 7 Mont. 585, 1 L. R. A. 240, 19 Pac. 281; Macaulay v. Porter, 71 N. Y. 173; Ruffier v. Womack, 30 Tex. 332, Reed v. Parker, 33 Wash. 107, 74 Pac. 61; Mankin v. Dickinson, 76 W. Va. 128, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 120, 85 S. E. 74.

27. Russell v. Southard, 12 How. (U. S.) 139, 13 L. Ed. 927; Cosby v. Buchanan, 81 Ala. 574; Morton v. Allen, 180 Ala. 279, L. R. A. 1916B, 11, 60 So. 866; Parmer v. Grose, 42 Cal. 169; Casper Nat. Bank v. Jenner, 268 111. 142, 108 N. E. 998; Trucks v. Lindsey, 18 Iowa, 504, McRobert v. Bridget, 168 Iowa, 28, 149 N. W. 906; Edrington v. Harper, 3 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 354, 20

Am. Dec. 145; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118, 24 N. W. 369; Phillips v. Jackson, 240 Mo. 310, 144 S. W. 112; Gassert v. Bogk, 7 Mont. 585, 1 L. R. A. 240, 19 Pac. 281; Matthews v. Sheehan. 69 N. Y. 585; Poindexter v. McCan-non, 16 N. C. 373, 18 Am. Dec. 591; Smith v. Hoff, 23 N. D. 37, Ann. Cas. 1914C. 1072, 135 N. W. 772; Bickel v. Wessinger, 58 Ore. 98, 113 Pac. 34. But occasionally a contrary attitude in this regard appears to have been adopted. Wallace v. Johnstone, 129 U. S. 58, 32 L. Ed. 619; Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U. S. 17, 37 L. Ed. 631; Elling v. Fine, 53 Mont. 481, 164 Pac. 891; Johnson v. National Eank of Commerce, 65. Wash. 261, 118 Pac. 21; Beverly v. Davis, 79 Wash. 537, 140 Pac. 696.

(f) Conveyance by third person. What is in effect the same as an absolute conveyance made by a debtor to a creditor by way of security is one so made by a third person to the creditor, at the request or with the consent of the debtor, in order to secure the performance of the latter's obligation. So when the purchaser of land, having borrowed money, in order to pay for the land or for some other purpose, has the conveyance by the vendor made directly to the lender of the money, and as security for its repayment, the borrower and the lender stand in effect in the position of mortgagor and mortgagee, extraneous evidence being admissible to show that the conveyance, though in form absolute, was intended by the real parties in interest, the grantee therein and the vendee, to be for purposes of security only.31 Such a case is to be distinguished from that in which the vendee has the conveyance made directly to the person furnishing the money, who agrees to convey the land to the vendee in case the latter is willing to pay the lender the amount of his advance, or some other amount named. In this latter case there is in effect a conveyance with a right of repurchase, as distinguished from a mortgage,32 which does not, as does a mortgage, involve any existing claim or obligation in favor of the party making the advance.33

28. Jackson v. Lawrence, 117 U. S. 679, 29 L. Ed. 1024; Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Slee, 123 111. 57, 13 N. E. 222; Tufts v. Tapley, 129 Mass. 380; Gruber v. Baker, 20 Nev. 453, 9 L. R. A. 302, 23 Pac. 858; Prink v. Adams, 36 N. J. Eq. 485; Meehan v. Forrester, 52 N. Y. 277; Waters v. Crabtree, 105 N. C. 394, 11 S. E. 240; Pancake v. Cauffman, 114 Pa. St. 113, 7 Atl. 67; Murphy v. Plank-inton Bank, 13 S. D. 601, 83 N. W. 575.

29. Shillaber v. Robinson, 97 U. S. 68, 24 L. Ed. 967; Van ings v. Bank of Madera, 121 Cal. 539, 54 Pac. 83, 270; Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Slee, 123 111. 57, 13 N. E. 222: Beatty v. Brummett, 94 Ind. 76; Barnett v. Nelson, 46 Iowa, 495; Nichols v. Marquess, 141 Ky. 642, 133 S. W. 562; Dry-den v. Hanway, 31 Md. 254; Potter v. Kimball, 186 Mass. 120, 71 N. E. 308; Anderson v. Smith, 103 Mich. 446. 61 N. W. 778; Mc-Lure v. National Bank of Commerce, 252 Mo. 510, 100 S. W. 105; Dickson v. Stewart, 71 Neb. 424, 115 Am. St. Rep. 596, 98 N. W. 1085; Barkelew v. Taylor, 8 N. J. Eq. 206; Sahler v. Signer, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 329; Lutz v. Hoyle, 167 N. C. 632, 83 S. E. 749; Wilson v. Giddings, 28 Ohio St. 554; Hiester v. Maderia, 3 Watts & S.

Heuvel v. Long, - Ala. -, 75 So. 339; Sheldon v. Bradley, 37 Conn. 324; Crassen v. Swoveland, 22 Ind. 427.

30. Nelson v. Wadsworth, 181 Ala. 361, 61 So. 895; Clark v. Morris, 88 Kan. 752, 129 Pac. 1195; Veach v. Smith, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 851, 107 S. W. 234; Enos v. Sutherland, 11 Mich. 538; Wilson v. Dumrite, 24 Mo. 304; Haussknecht v. Smith, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 185, 42 N. Y. Supp. 611; Boothe v. Fiest, 80 Tex. 141, 15 S. W. 799; see editorial note, 13 Columbia Law Rev. 442.

Similar in principle to the case of an absolute conveyance made by a vendor to a third person to secure a claim in favor of the latter, is the case of a purchase of land at judicial or sheriff's sale by one person on behalf of another, quite usually the owner or a junior lienor, under an agreement by the latter that he will refund the purchase price and that until this is done the nominal purchaser will hold the legal title as security.34

31. Hughes v. McKenzie, 101 Ala. 415, 13 So. 609; Putnam v. Summerlin, 168 Ala. 390, 53 So. 101; Cramer v. Remmel, 132 Ark. 158, 200 S. W. 811; Campbell v. Freeman, 99 Cal. 546; Fleming v. Georgia Railroad Bank, 120 Ga. 1023, 48 S. E. 420; Stewart v. Fellows, 128 111. 480, 20 N. E. 657; Henry v. Britt, 265 111. 131, 106 N. E. 455; Rogers v. Davis, 91 Iowa, 730, 59 N. W. 265; Stratton v. Rotrock, 84 Kan. 198, 114 Pac. 224; Stinchfield v. Milliken, 71 Me. 567; Tenvoorde v. Tenvoorde, 128 Minn. 126, 150 N. W. 396; Carr v. Carr, 52 N. Y. 251; Sand-ling v. Kearney, 154 N. C. 596, 70 S. E. 942; Balduff v. Griswold, 9 Okla. 438, 60 Pac. 223; Malloy v Malloy, 35 Neb. 224, 52 N. W. 1097; Carr v. Carr, 52 N. Y. 251;