The cases are usually to the effect that a junior claimant who is not made a party to a foreclosure proceeding cannot be required, as a condition of redeeming, to pay any part of the costs incurred in such proceeding.80

Senior lienors. Persons holding mortgages or other liens prior to the mortgage sought to be fore77. Rogers v. Holyoke, 14 Mian. 220; Martin v. Adams Brick Co., 180 Ind. 181, 102 N. E. 831; Foster v. Johnson, 44 Minn. 290, 46 N. W. 350; Ten Eyck v. Casad, 15 Iowa, 524; Shaw v. Heisey, 48 Iowa, 468; Parker v. Child, 25 N. J. Eq. 41; Sellwood v. Gray, 11 Ore. 534, 5 Pac. 196;

Only if he consents thereto,86 and in any case, in order that his lien be extinguished by the sale, it must appear from the language of the pleadings or decree that the sale was to be free therefrom, merely making him a party being insufficient for this purpose.87 Whether, when the claim secured by the prior mortgage is due, the prior mortgagee can refuse to be made a party for the purpose of selling free of his lien, or can refuse his consent to such a sale, does not clearly appear. It would seem, on principle, that the prior mortgagee should be at liberty to select his own time for enforcing his claim against the property, and not be subject to the control of a junior lienor in this regard.88

78. See Ante, Sec. 650. But, that strict foreclosure will not be allowed in such case in favor of a senior mortgagee who purchased at his foreclosure sale, if he failed to make the junior lienor a party though knowing, or having reason to know, of his interest as such, see Moulton v. Cornish, 138 N. Y. 133, 20 L. R. A. 370, 33 N. E. 842, provided at least the junior lienor was not guilty of laches or negligence. Denton v. Ontario County Nat. Bank, 150 N. Y. 126, 44 N. E. 781.

79. Winchester v. Beavor, 3 Ves. Jr. 317; Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 Cal. 307; Leonard v. Groome, 47 Md. 499; Gould v. Wheeler, 28 N. J. Eq. 541; Haines v. Beach. 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 959; Ensworth v. Lambert, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 605; Hinsen v. Adrian, 86 N. C. 61.

80. Rodman v. Quick, 211 111. 546, 71 N. E. 1087; Gaskell v. Viquesney, 122 Ind. 244, 23 N. E. 791; Jones v. Dutch, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 673, 92 N. W. 735; Gage v. Brewster, 31 N. Y. 218; Raynor v. Selmes, 52 N. Y. 579. Contra, semble, Stanbrough v. Daniels, 77 Iowa, 561, 42 N. W. 443.

81. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 24 L. Ed. 136; Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. (U. S.) 29, 37, 14 L. Ed. 312; White v. Holman, 32 Ark. 753; Krutsinger v. Brown, 72 Ind. 466; Tome v. Merchants & Mechanics' Permanent Bldg. & Loan Co., 34 Md. 12; Hancock v. Hancock, 22 N. Y. 568; Mims v. Mims, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 425; Hague v. Jackson, 71 Tex. 761, by reason of local practice acts, or otherwise, have allowed such claimants to be made parties for the purpose of litigating and settling the title to the property in connection with the foreclosure of the mortgage.90

12 S. W. 63: Strobe v. Downer.

13 Wis. 10, 80 Am. Dec. 709, note. But see Clark v. Prentice, 3 Dana (Ky.) 468.

82. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 24 L. Ed. 136; Harwell v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 72 Ala. 344; Persons v. Alsup, 2 Ind. 67: Masters v. Templeton, 92 Ind. 447; Tobin v. Rogers, 121 Md. 249, 88 Atl. 133; Foster v. Johnson, 44 Minn. 290, 46 N. W. 350; Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank Y.

Goldman, 75 N. Y. 127; Jacobie v. Mickle, 144 N. Y. 237, 39 N. E. 66; First Nat. Bank v. Salem Flour Mills Co., 31 Fed. 580.

83. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 24 L. Ed. 136; Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tonawanda, etc., R Co., 18 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 368, 106 N. Y. 673; Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Richardson, 57 Neb. 617, 78 N. W. 273; Bexar Building & Loan Ass'n v. Newman, - (Tex. Civ. App.) -, 25 S. W. 461.

84. Masters v. Templeton, 92 Ind. 447; Foster v. Johnson, 4 1 Minn. 290, 46 N. W. 350; Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Richardson, 57 Neb. 617, 78 N. W. 273.

85. See Walsh v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 33; Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, 1S5 Fed. 650, 68 C. C. A. 288.

Adverse claimants. Persons asserting adverse claims to the mortgaged land, alleged to be paramount to the rights of the mortgagor are usually, in most jurisdictions, not proper parties to the foreclosure proceeding, since the object of such a proceeding is, not to determine the title to the property, but, by means of a sale, to extinguish all rights subject to the mortgage.89 In a few jurisdictions, however, the courts,

86. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 24 L. Ed. 136; Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. (U. S.) 29, 14 L Ed. 312; Wylie v. McMakin, 2 Md. Ch. 413.

87: Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank v. Goldman, 75 N. Y. 127; Jacobie v. Mickle, 144 N. Y. 237, 39 N. E. 66.

88. See, to this effect, Three-foot v. Hillman, 130 Ala. 244, 89 Am. St. Rep. 39, 30 So. 513; Gihon v. Belleville W. L. Co., 7 N. J. Eq. 531; Bigelow v. Cassedy, 26 N. J. Eq. 557; Waters v. Bossel, 5S Miss. 602; Bexar Biding & Loan Ass'n v. Newman, - (Tex. Civ. Ap.) -, 25 S. W. 461; Wytheville Crystal Ice & Dairy Co. v. Frick

Co., 96 Va. 141, 30 S E. 491; and also remarks in Jacobie v. Mickle, 144 N. Y. 237, 39 N. E. 66.

89. Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340, 24 L. Ed. 644; Equitable Mortgage Co. v. Finley, 133 Ala. 575, 31 So. 985; San Francisco v. Lawton, 18 Cal. 465, 79 Am. Dec. 187; Gage v. Perry, 93 III. 176; Summers v. Bromley, 28 Mich. 125; Banning v. Bradford, 21 Minn. 308, 18 Am. Rep. 398; Lewis v. Smith, 9 N. Y. 502, 61 Am. Dec. 706; Bogey v. Shute, 57 N. C. 174; Kinsley v. Scott, 58 Vt. 470, 5 Atl. 390; California Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Cheney Electric Light, Telephone & Power Co., 12 Wash. 138, 40 Pac.