53a. Long v. Little, 119 111. 600, 8 N. E. 194; Devlin v. Quigg, 44 Minn. 534, 10 L. R. A. 665, 20 Am. St. Rep. 592, 47 N. W. 258, Brooks v. Owen, 112 Mo. 251, 19

S. W. 723, 20 S. W. 492

53b. Verdine v. Olney, 77 Mich. 310, 43 N. W. 975; Whitley v. Dunham Lumber Co., 89 Ala. 493, 7 So. 810; Long v. Little, 119 111. 600, 8 N. E. 194; Gray v. Bry-son, 87 Miss. 304, 39 So. 694.

54. Wittmeier v. Tidwell, 147 Ala. 354, 40 So. 963; Capehart v. Biggs, 77 N. C. 261; Chappell v. Clark, 92 Md. 98, 48 Atl. 36; Tut-hill v. Morris, 81 N. Y. 94.

55. Wolz v. Parker, 134 Mo. 458, 35 S. W. 1149; Grinnan v. Piatt, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 328.

56. Alston v. Morris, 113 Ala. 506, 20 So. 950; Moore v. Calkins, 85 Cal. 177, 24 Pac. 729; Carey v. Fulmer, 74 Miss. 729, 21 So. 752; Bridgers v. Morris, 90 N. C. 32; Gooch v. Vaughan, 92 N. C. 610; McCann v. Mortgage Bank & Investment Co., 3 N. D. 172, 54 N W. 1026 (statute); Hogan v. Duke, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 244; Muller's Adm'r v. Stone, 84 Va. 834, or two states a sale has been enjoined by reason of disputes or litigation as to the title.57 The fact that the property was subject to conflicting liens and that it was doubtful whether part of the property was covered by the mortgage has also been regarded as grounds for an injunction.58 A sale has also been enjoined on account of the lack of power of the mortgagor, a married woman, to mortgage her property,59 because the property sought to be sold was not covered by the mortgage,60 and because the advertisement of the sale was substantially defective.61

In one state it has been decided that it is cause for enjoining the sale that the mortgagee has an ulterior purpose in view, as, for instance, to compel the mortgagor to pay another debt,62 and in another state there is a dictum to the same effect.63 The correctness of such a view, that the motives with which one exercises the power, is a subject for inquiry by the court, appears to be open to question.64

The party seeking to enjoin the sale must, in so far as he does not deny the existence of any indebtedness whatever, offer to do equity by paying the amount justly due.65

10 Am. St. Rep. 889, 6 S. E. 223. Compare Montgomery v. McEwen, 9 Minn. 103; McCulla v. Beadles-ton, 17 R. I. 20, 20 Atl. 11.

57. Miller v. Argyle, 5 Leigh (Va.) 460; Muller's Adm'r v. Stone, 84 Va. 834, 10 Am. St. Rep. 889, 6 S. E. 223; Parsons v. Snider, 42 W. Va. 517, 26 S. E. 285.

58. Draper v. Lewis, 104 U. S. 347, 26 L. Ed. 783.

59. Strom v. American Freehold Land & Mortgage Co., 42 S. C. 97, 20 S. E. 16.

60. Preiss v. Campbell, 59 Ala. 635.

61. Vaught v. Rider, 83 Va. 659, 5 Am St. Rep. 305, 3 S. E.

293; Walker v. Boggess, 41 W. Va. 588, 23 S. E. 550. See Conlin v. Carter, 93 111. 536.

62. Struve v. Childs, 63 Ala. 473; McCalley v. Otey, 90 Ala. 302, 8 So. 157.

63. Holland v. Citizens Sav. Bank, 16 R. I. 734, 8 L. R. A. 553, 19 Atl. 654. But see McCulla v. Beadleston, 17 R. I. 20.

64. The later English cases are opposed to such a view. See Warner v. Jacob, 20 Ch. D. 22; Nash v. Eads, 25 Sol. Journal 95, overruling Robertson v. Norris, 1 Giff. 421. And see ante Sec. 648, note 87.

65. Wittmeier v. Tidwell, 147 Ala. 354, 40 So. 963; Tooke v.

Setting aside sale. It appears that the sale will ordinarily be set aside in equity on grounds on which it would have been previously enjoined, as for instance where the debt never existed,66 or has been extinguished,67 or where the notice of sale was substantially defective.68 And conversely it will not be set aside by reason of conditions existing at the time of the sale which would not have justified an injunction, such as the severity of the terms on which the loan was made.69 Fraud or oppressive conduct on the part of the trustee in the course of his execution of the power is ground for setting aside the sale,70 as is a substantial departure departure by him from the method of proceeding prescribed by the statute or the power.71 Likewise, a failure to conduct the sale in such a manner as to secure the highest possible price for the property will usually be regarded as ground for setting aside the sale.72 The fact that the property is sold at an inadequate price does not of itself invalidate the sale,73 but in the case of a very great disparity in this respect the court will be astute in extracting from the facts of the case sufficient to justify it in annulling the sale by reason of mistake, surprise, inadvertence or unfair conduct.74

Newman, 75 111. 215; Sloan v. Coolbaugh, 10 Iowa, 31; Eakle v. Hagan, 101 Md. 22, 60 Atl. 615; Meysenburg v. Schlieper, 46 Mo. 209; Fanning v. Dunham, 5 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 122, 9 Am. Dec. 283; Vechte v. Brownell, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 212; Haggerson v. Phillips, 37 Wis. 364.

66. Walker v. Carleton, 97 111. 582.

67. Misener v. Gould, 11 Minn. 166; Liddell v. Carson, 122 Ala. 518, 26 So. 133; Baker v. Halli-gan, 75 Mo. 435.

68. Peaslee v. Ridgway, 82 Minn. 288, 84 N. W. 1024; Chace v. Morse, 189 Mass. 559, 76 N. E. 142; Reeside v. Peter, 33 Md. 120; Eubanks v. Rector, 158 N. C. 230, 73 S. E. 1009; Jenson v. Andrews, 39 S. D. 104, 163 N. W. 571.

69. Dunn v. McCoy, 150 Mo.

548, 52 S. W. 21; Robinson v. Amateur Literary, etc., Ass'n, 14 S. C. 148; Learned v. Geer, 139 Mass. 31, 29 N. E. 215.

70. Littell v. Grady, 38 Ark. 584; Jose Realty Co. v. Pavlice-vich, 164 Cal. 613, 130 Pac. 15; Williamson v. Stone, 128 111. 129. 22 N. E. 1005; Thompson v. Hey-wood, 129 Mass. 401; Herring v. Sutton, 86 Miss. 283, 38 So. 235; Newman v. Ogden, 82 Wis. 53, 51 N. W. 1091.

71. Bent-Otero Imp. Co. v. Whitehead, 25 Colo. 354, 71 Am. St. Rep. 140, 54 Pac. 1023; Equitable Trust Co. v. Fisher, 106 111. 189; Cassell v. Ross, 33 111. 244, 85 Am. Dec. 270; Sears v. Liver-more, 17 Iowa, 297, 85 Am. Dec. 564; Pratt v. Tinkcom, 21 Minn. 142.

72. Dozier v. Farrior, 187 Ala.

Conveyance to purchaser. The mortgage usually authorizes the mortgagee, upon exercising the power of sale, to make a conveyance to the purchaser, and in some states the statute contains provisions as to a conveyance to the purchaser, sometimes authorizing a conveyance to be made by the sheriff. But apart from any express authority to make a conveyance, an authority to sell includes, it appears, an authority to convey to the purchaser.75 Furthermore, regarding the power as one of appointment,76 if it does not expressly provide for the making of a conveyance to the purchaser, the making of the sale, without any conveyance, would seem to be a sufficient appointment under the power, so as to vest the mortgagor's title in the purchaser, except in so far as the legal title may, by the mortgage, have been vested in the mortgagee. If the mortgagee has the legal title, a conveyance by him is necessary to divest it.77