53. Jackson v. Huntington. 5 Pet. 402, 8 L. Ed. 170; Elder v. Mcclaskey, 70 Fed. 529, 17 C. C. A. 251. Fielder v. Childs, 73 Ala. 567; Brown v. Bocquin, 57 Ark. 97, 20 S. W. 813; Winterburn v. Chambers, 91 Cal. 170, 27 Pac. 658; Mcdowell v. Sutlive, 78 Ga. 142, 2 S. E. 937; Bowman v. Owens, 133 Ga. 49, 65 S. E. 156; Waterman Hall v. Waterman, 220 111. 569, 77 N. E. 142; King v. Carmichael, 136 Ind. 20, 43 Am. St. Rep. 303, 35 N. E. 509; Blankenhorn v. Lenox, 123 Iowa, 67, 98 N. W. 556; Clarke v. Dirks, 178 Iowa, 335, 160 N. W. 31; Rose v. Ware, 115 Ky. 420, 74 S. W. 188; Segelbohm v. Waldner, 101 Kan. 156, 165 Pac. 649. Soper v.

Lawrence Bros. Co., 98 Me. 268, 99 Am. St. Rep. 397, 56 Atl. 908; Merryman v. Cumberland Paper Co., 98 Md. 223, 56 Atl. Parker v. Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimack River, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 91, 37 Am. Dec 121; Joyce v. Dyer. 189 Mass. 64, 109 Am. St. Rep. 603, 75 N. E. 81; Phipps v. Crowell, 224 Mass. 342, 112 N. E. 648; Fuller v. Swensberg, 106 Mich. 305, 58 Am. St. Rep 181, 64 N. W. 463; Brig- ham v. Reau, 139 Mich. 256, 102 N. W. 845; Hanson v. Ingwald son, 77 Minn. 533. 77 Am. St. Rep. 692, 80 N W. 702; Sanford v conveyance purports to be, not of the entire interest in the property, but of the interest of the grantor merely, the possession of the grantee is prima facie like that of his grantor, that of a cotenant only, and not adverse to the other cotenant, and the latter is justified in assuming this to be the case.54

- (i) Mortgagor and mortgagee. Even in those states in which the mortgagee is regarded as having the legal title, so that there might otherwise be room for the application of the doctrine of adverse possession as between the mortgagor and mortgagee,

Safford, 99 Minn. 380, 109 N. W. 819; Eastman v. Hinton, 86 Miss. 604, 109 Am. St. Rep. 726, 38 So. 779; Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. J. L. 527; Baker v. Trujillo De Armijo, 17 N. M. 383, 128 Pac. 73; Sweet-land v. Buell, 164 N. Y. 541, 79 Am. St. Rep. 676, 58 N. E. 663; Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Ore. 421, 67 Am. St. Rep. 540, 52 Pac. 183; Culler v. Motzer, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 356, 15 Am. Dec. 604; Sud-duth v. Sumeral, 61 S. C. 276, 85 Am. St. Rep. 83, 39 S. E. 534: Weisinger v. Murphy, 2 Head (Tenn.) 679; Virginia Coal & Iron Co. v. Hylton, 115 Va. 418, Ann. Cas. 1915A 741. 79 S. E. 337; Church v. State, 65 Wash. 50, 117 Pac. 711; Roberts v. Decker, 120 Wis. 102, 97 N. W. 519. In North Carolina a different view has apparently been taken. Hardee v. Weathington, 130 N. C. 91, 40 S. E. 855; Bullin v. Hancock, 138 N. C. 198, 50 S. E. 621; Roscoe v. Roper Lumber Co., 124 N. C. 42, 32 S. E. 389.

If there is no change of possession after the conveyance, as when the person who held as tenant under the grantor continues to hold under the grantee, the other cotenant is not chargeable with notice that the possessions has become adverse. Pickens v. Stout, 67 W. Va. 422, 68 S. E. 354; Long v. Morrison, 251 111. 143, 95 N. E. 1075. And so when a cotenant makes a conveyance of the whole, even though this be recorded, but he retains the exclusive possession. Brasher v. Taylor, 109 Ark. 281, 159 S, W. 1120.

54. Bath v. Valdez, 70 Cal. 350, 7 Pac. 487; Gracy v. Fielding, 71 Fla. 1, 70 So. 625; Grand Tower Min., Mfg. & Transp. Co. v. Gill, 111 111. 541; Stevens v. Wait, 112 111. 544; Moore v. Antill, 53 Iowa, 612, 6 N. W. 14; Curtis v. Barber, 131 Iowa, 400, 117 Am. St. Rep. 425, 108 N. W. 755; Lefavour v. Haman, 3 Allen (Mass.) 356; See Mcquiddy v. Ware, 67 Mo. 74; Woods v. Banks, 14 N. H. 1ll; Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. J. L. 547; Sharp v. Brandow, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 597; Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 64. So in the case of a conveyance in terms of an undivided interest. Wilson v. Storthz, 177 Ark. 418, 175 S. W. 45.

The possession of the mortgagee before default is regarded as in behalf of the mortgagor, to whom he must account for the rents and profits,56 and is consequently not adverse, in the absence of a denial of the mortgagor's rights.57 But if the mortgagee takes possession after condition broken, for the purpose of realizing his security, his possession is presumed to be adverse, or, as it is ordinarily expressed in jurisdictions where the legal title is in the mortgagee, a court of equity will, in such case, apply the analogy of the statute of limitations as against the right of the mortgagor to redeem, in the absence of any recognition by him of the mortgagor's title.58

55. Gafford v. Strauss, 89 Ala. 282, 7 L. R. A. 568, 18 Am. St. Rep. Ill, 7 So. 248. Whittington v. Flint, 43 Ark. 504, 51 Am. Rep. 572; Norris v. He, 152 111. 190, 43 Am. St. Rep. 233, 38 N. E. 762; Holmes v. Turner's Falls Co., 150 Mass. 535, 6 L. R. A. 283, 23 N. E. 305; Chouteau v. Riddle, 110 Mo. 366, 19 S. W. 814; Tripe v. Marcy, 39 N. H. 439; Colton v. Depew, 60 N. J. Eq. 454, 83 Am. St. Rep. 650, 46 Atl. 728; Martin v. Jackson, 27 Pa. St. 504, 67 Am. Dec. 489; Creigh's Heirs v. Hen-son, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 231; Flynn v. Lee, 31 W. Va. 487. 7 S. E. 430.

56. See post Sec. 613(c).

57. Warder v. Enslen, 73 Cal. 291, 14 Pac. 874; Jones v. Foster, 175 111. 459, 51 N. E. 862, Green v. Turner, 38 Iowa, 112; Mcpherson v. Hayward, 81 Me. 329, 17 Atl. 164; Holmes v. Turner's Falls Co., 150 Mass. 535, 6 L. R. A. 283, 23 N. E. 305; Anding v. Davis, 38 Miss. 574, 77 Am. Dec. 658; Kip v. Hirsh, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1; Robinson v. Fife, 3 Ohio St. 551; West v. Middlessex Banking Co., 33 S. D. 465, 146 N. W. 598.

58. Hughes v. Edwards. 9 Wheat (U. S.) 489, 6 L. Ed. 142; Byrd v. Mcdaniel, 33 Ala. 18; Tibbs v. Reed, 105 Ky. 331, 49 S. W. 6, (semble); Munro v. Barton, 98 Me. 250, 56 Atl. 844: Ayres v. Waite, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 72; Stephens v. Dedham Institution, 129 Mass. 547; Nelson v. Ratliff, 72 Miss. 656, 18 So. 487: Essex v. Smith, 97 Neb. 649. 150 N. W. 1022; Hall v. Hooper, 47 Neb. Ill, 66 N. W. 33. Clark v. dough, 65 N. II. 43, 23 Atl. 521: Hubbell v. Sibley, 50 N. Y. 468; Knowlton v. Walker, 13 Wis. 295.