7. See Pardee v. Lindley, 31 III. 174; Strother v. Law, 54 III. 413; Mason v. Ainsworth, 58 III. 163.

8. Sanford v. Kane, 133 III. 199, 8 L. R. A. 724, 23 Am. St. Rep. 602, 24 N. E. 414.

9. Olcott v. Crittenden, 68 Mich. 230, 36 N. W. 41.

10. Holmes v. Turners Falls

Lumber Co., 150 Mass. 535, 6 L. R A. 283, 23 N. E. 305.

11. Merwin v. Lewis, 90 III. 505; Stevens v. Shannahan, 160 III. 330, 43 N. E. 350; Collins v. Hopkins, 7 Iowa, 463; Yount v. Morrison, 109 N. C. 520, 13 S. E. 892; Richmond v. Hughes, 9 R. I 228.

12. Lewis v. Wells, 50 Ala. 198; given to executors and administrators has been held to include a foreign executor or administrator.13 And the requirement of the record of any assignment as a prerequisite to the exercise of the power has been held not to require the record of evidence of his appointment.14

In case of trust deed. In case the power of sale is given, not to the creditor, but to a third person as trustee, he is the person to execute the power, and he cannot transfer or delegate the power to another.15 If he dies,16 or is in any way disqualified to act,17 or refuses to act,18 a court of equity will appoint another to act as trustee in his place, or the deed may itself name a substitute, or provide for the appointment of a successor in the trust,19 or that, in

Harnickell v. Orndorff, 35 Md. 341; Miller v. Clark, 56 Mich. 337, 23 N. W. 35; Baldwin v. Allison,' 4 Minn. 25; People v. Prescott, 3 Hun. (N. Y.) 419.

13. Holcombe v. Richards, 38 Minn. 38, 35 N. W. 714; Doolittle v. Lewis, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 45; Hayes v. Frey, 54 Wis. 503, 11 N. W. 695; Stevens v. Shan-nahan, 160 III. 330, 43 N. E. 350.

14. Cone v. Nimocks, 78 Minn. 249, 80 N. W. 1056; Hayes v. Frey, 54 Wis. 503, 11 N. W. 695; see Miller v. Clark, 56 Mich. 337, 23 N. W. 35.

15. Greenfield v. Stout, 122 Ga. 303, 50 S. E. III; Flower v. Elwood, 66 III. 438; Doe v. Robinson, 24 Miss. 688; Polliham v. Reveley, 181 Mo. 622, 81 S. W. 182; Fuller v. O'Neil, 69 Tex. 349, 5 Am. St. Rep. 59, 6 S. W. 181; Morriss v. Virginia State Ins. Co., 90 Va. 370, 18 S. E. 843; Copelan v. Sohn, 75 W. Va. 83, 82 S. E. 1016.

16. Less v. English, 75 Ark. 288, 87 S. W. 447; Holden v. Stick-ney, 2 MacArth, (D. C.) 111; Marsh v. Green, 79 III. 385; Clark v. Wilson, 53 Miss. 119; Fresh v. Million, 9 Mo. 315; Wilson v. Towle, 36 N. H. 129; Wright v. Fort, 126 N. C. 615, 36 S. E. 113; Williamson v. Wickersham, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 52; Converse v. Davis, 90 Tex. 462, 39 S. W. 277.

17. New York Security & Trust Co. v. Saratoga Gas & Electric Light Co., 88 Hun, 569, 157 N. Y. 689, 51 N. E. 1092; Hunter's Ex'x v. Vaughan, 24 Gratt. (Va.) 400.

18. Lill v. Neafie, 31 111. 101; Clark v. Wilson, 53 Miss. 119; Machir v. Sehon, 14 W. Va. 777.

19. Leech v. Karthaus, 141 Ala. 509, 37 So. 696; Irish v. Antioch College, 126 111. 474, 9 Am. St. Rep. 638, 18 N. E. 768; Moore v. Isbel, 40 Iowa, 383; Polle v. Rouse, 73 Miss. 713, 19 So. 481; Weir v. Jones, 84 Miss. 602, 36 So. 533; Reynolds v. Kroff, 144 case of the death or incapacity of the trustee, the sale shall be made by a public official, such as the sheriff.20 When the instrument provides for a sale by a substituted trustee in a certain contingency, a sale by such substitute has been regarded as invalid unless the contingency, such as the original trustee's refusal to act, has actually occurred.21 There are, however, statements to be found to the effect that, when the deed of trust provides that, in case the trustee named refuses to make the sale, it may be made by another, a sale made by such other will, in favor of a bona fide purchaser, be supported, although the original trustee did not refuse to make it.22

The deed of trust may, it seems, validly provide that the trustee's personal representative shall exercise the power in case of his death.23

Extinguishment of the power. Payment of the debt even after its maturity will no doubt extinguish the power of sale,24 and in some jurisdictions a

Mo. 433, 46 S. W. 424; Gooch v. Addison, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 76, 35 S. W. 83; Michael v. Crawford, 108 Tex. 352, 193 S. W. 1070.

20. See Dunham v. Hartman, 153 Mo. 625, 77 Am. St. Rep. 741. 55 S. W. 233; Woods v. Rozelle, 75 Miss. 782, 23 So. 483. Or the statute may authorize a sale by the sheriff. See Morrissey v. Dean, 97 Wis. 302, 72 N. W. 873.

21. Equitable Trust Co. v. Fisher, 106 111. 189; Watson v. Perkins, 88 Miss. 64, 40 So. 643, Kelsay v. Farmers' & Traders' Bank, 166 Mo. 157, 65 S. W. 1007; Davis v. Hughes, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 473, 85 S. W. 1161.

22. Kelsay v. Farmers' & Traders' Bank, 166 Mo. 157, 65 S. W. 1007; Adams v. Carpenter, 187

Mo. 613, 86 S. W. 445. But see Cox v. American Freehold & Land Mortgage Co. of London, 88 Miss. 88, 40 So. 739.

23. Sulphur Mines Co. of Virginia v. Thompson's Heirs, 93 Va. 293, 25 S. E. 232. But Barrick v. Horner, 78 Md. 253, 44 Am. St. Rep. 283, 27 Atl. 1111, appears to be contra.

24. Askew v. Sanders, 84 Ala. 356, 4 So. 167; Ryan v. Rice, 109 Ga. 448, 34 S. E. 569; Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 83 111. 302, 25 Am. Rep. 386; Shippen v. Whittier, 117 111. 282, 7 N. E. 642; Penny v. Cook, 19 Iowa, 558; Wells v. Estes, 154 Mo. 291, 55 S. W. 255; Cameron v. Irwin, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 272; Mills v. Traylor, 30 mere tender by the mortgage debtor would have this effect.25

The payment of the debt, it has been decided, extinguishes the power of sale even as against one purchasing without notice of the extinguishment.26 There are, on the other hand, decisions to the effect that such payment, not accompanied by any discharge of record, is not effective as against an innocent purchaser claiming by right of a sale made under the power.27

Whether the power of sale is extinguished by reason of the fact that the statutory period of limitations has run against the personal remedy on the debt would seem to depend on whether, in the particular jurisdiction, the lien of a mortgage is regarded as so extinguished,27a the power being created as an incident to the mortgage relation.28