In the case of a deed of trust to secure, it is necessary, ordinarily, to make the creditor or creditors secured, as well as the trustee, parties to a proceeding for the sale of the property.46 This requirement is born, 8 Gray (Mass.) 154; Martin v McReynolds, 6 Mich. 70. But that such representatives must be made parties, see Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Sturges, 32 N. J. Eq. 678.

42. Omaha Hotel Co. v. Wade, 97 U. S. 13, 24 L. Ed. 917; Citizens' Bank of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Iron & Steel Co., 131 Cal. 187, 82 Am. St. Rep. 341, 63 Pac. 462; McFadden v. May's Landing & E H. C. R. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 176, 22 Atl. 932; Com. v. Susquehanna & D. R. R. Co., 122 Pa. St. 306, 1 L. R. A. 225, 15 Atl. 448.

43. Galveston R. Co. v. Cow-drey, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 459, 20 L. Ed. 199; Webb v. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 9 Fed. 793, 20 Blatchf. 218; Cochran v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 150 Fed. 682; Etlinger v. Persian Rug & Carpet Co., 142 N. Y. 189, 40 Am. St. Rep. 587, 36 N. E. 1055; Clay v. Selan Valley Irrigation Co., 14 Wash. 543, 45 Pac. 141.

44. Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 105, 30 L. Ed. 905; Dorn v. Colt, 180 111. 397, 54 N. E. 167; Hutchison v. Myers, 62 Kan. 290, 34 Pac. 742; Hammond v. Tarver, 89 Tex. 290, 32 S. W. 511, 34 S. W. 729.

45. General Electric Co. v. La-grande Edison Electric Co., 87 Fed. 590, 31 C. C. A. 118; Consolidated Water Co. v. San Diego, 92 Fed. 759.

45a. Seibert v. Minneapolis & St. L Ry. Co., 52 Minn. 148, 20 L. ft. A. 535, 38 Am. St. Rep. 530, 53 N. W. l134.

46. Boyd v. Jones, 44 Ark. 314; Butler v. Farry, 68 N. J. Eq. 760, not, however, enforced when the creditors secured are so numerous that compliance therewith would be difficult, if not impossible.47 And it has been regarded as non existent when there is a statutory provision that the trustee of an express trust may sue without joining his beneficiaries.48

Persons having estates in land. One in whom

.the legal title is vested as being the original mortgagee, or an assignee of the latter, should be a party to any proceeding instituted by the owner of the debt, since otherwise the legal title would not pass by the sale,49 and so the trustee under a deed of trust must usually be made a party to a proceeding instituted by an owner or part owner of the debt secured.50

In order that the decree for sale may be binding upon any particular person who has an interest subject to the mortgage, so as to extinguish such interest, with its incidental right to "redeem" from the mortgage lien by payment of the mortgage debt, it is necessary that such a person be a party to the proceeding. One limitation upon the generality of this rule is, however, to be noticed. One who acquires an estate in the land subject to the mortgage is, it has been decided, bound by the decree and sale, even though not a party, if he did not record his deed until after the commencement of the foreclosure proceeding,51 pro63 Atl. 240; Springer v. Sheets, 115 N. C. 370, 20 S. E. 469; Day v. Wetherby, 29 Wis. 363.

47. Chicago & G. W. Railroad Land Co. v. Peck, 112 111. 408; Shaw v. Norfolk County R. Co., 5 Gray (Mass.) 162; Butler v. Farry, 68 N. J. Eq. 760, 63 Atl. 240.

48. Glide v. Dwyer, 83 Cal. 477, 23 Pac. 706; Rinker v. Bis-sell, 90 Ind. 375; Vance v. Lane, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 619. 82 S. W. 297; Tainter v. Adams, 76 Neb. 109,

107 N. W. 223; Hays v. Gahon Gas Light & Coal Co., 29 Ohio St. 330.

49. Langley v. Andrews, 132 Ala. 147, 31 So. 469; Nichol v. Henry, 89 Ind. 54.

50. Hambrick v. Russell, 86 Ala. 199; Harlow v. Mister, 64 Miss. 25, 8 So. 164; Shelby v. Burtis, 18 Tex. 644; Gardner v. Brown, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 36, 22 L. Ed. 527.

51. Connely v. Rue, 148 111. 207, 35 N. E. 824; Boice v. Mlchivided at least the mortgage creditor did not have notice, by the transferee's possession or otherwise, that the latter claimed an interest in the property.52 Occasionally a statute relieves the mortgage creditor from any obligation to make a transferee, whose conveyance is not recorded at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a party thereto.53 Furthermore, if one does not acquire his interest in the land until after the institution of the foreclosure proceeding, he is usually,' by force of the doctrine of lis pendens,54 bound by the decree in such proceeding, though not a party thereto. As regards one who has an estate in the land subject to the mortgage, an owner or part owner of the equity of redemption, as he would ordinarily be called, if he is not made a party, he will, as above indicated, in spite of the decree and sale thereunder, ordinarily retain the right of redemption,55 and also, it would seem, any right of possession incident to his estate.56 gan Mut. Life Ins. Co., 114 Ind. 480, 15 N. E. 825; Wolfenberger v. Hubbard, 184 Ind. 25, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 81, 110 N. E. 198; Porter v. Kilgore, 32 Iowa, 379 (dictum); Shippen v. Kimball, 47 Kan. 173, 27 Pac. 813.

52. Connely v. Rue, 148 111. 207, 35 N. E. 824; Boice v. Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co., 114 Ind. 480, 15 N. E. 825; Webb v. Maxan, 11 Tex. 678. See Batterman v. Albright, 122 N. Y. 484, 11 L. R. A. 800, 19 Am. St. Rep. 510, 25 N. E. 856.

53. See Hager v. Astorg, 145 Cal. 548, 104 Am. St. Rep. 68, 79 Pac. 68; Batterman v. Albright. 122 N. Y. 484, 11 L. R. A. 800, i9 Am. St. Rep. 510, 25 N. E. 856; Dinsmore v. Westcott, 25 N. J. Eq. 302.

54. Ante, Sec. 579.

55. Dickinson v. Duckworth,

74 Ark. 138, 4 Ann. Cas. 846, 85 S. W. 82; Randall v. Duff, 79 Cal. 115, 3 L. R. A. 754, 756, 19 Pac. 532, 21 Pac. 610; Jordan v. Sayre, 29 Fla. 100, 10 So. 823; Walker v. Warner, 179 111. 16, 70 Am. St. Rep. 85, 53 N. E. 594; Alsup v. Stewart, 194 111. 595 88 Am. St. Rep. 169, 62 N. E 795; Barrett v. Blackmar, 47 Iowa, 565; Sumner v. Coleman, 20 Ind 486; Fowler v. Lilly, 122 Ind. 297, 23 N. E. 767; Lenox v. Reed, 12 Kan. 223; Brundred v. Walker, 12 N. J. Eq. 140; Winslow v. Clark, 47 N. Y. 261; Frische v. Kramer, 16 Ohio, 125; Harding v. Gillett, 25 Okla. 199, 107 Pac. 665; Tualatin Academy v. Keene, 59 Ore. 496, 117 Pac. 424; Stark v Brown, 12 Wis. 572, 78 Am. Dec 761.