28. Smith v. Simpson, 129 Ark. 275, 195 S. W. 1067; Hocker v. Reas, 18 Cal. 650; Williams v. Dickerson, 66 Iowa, 105. 37 N. W. 286; Mann v. Richardson, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 355; Adams v. Brown, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 220; Bennett v. Healey, 6 Minn. 240; Deming v. Comings. 11 N. H. 474.

29. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. of London v. Pollard, 132 Ala. 155, 32 So. 630; Shumate v. McLendon, 120 Ga. 396, 48 N. E. 10; Meacham v. Steele, 93 111. 135; Gaskell v. Viquesney, 122 Ind. 244, 17 Am. St. Rep. 364, 23 N. E. 791; Smith v Kelley, 27 Me. 237, 46 Am. Dec. 595; Merritt v. Hosmer, 11 Gray any sums paid by the latter for insurance premiums which the mortgagor was by contract bound to pay,32 and in case the mortgage creditor was in possession of the property, the latter is entitled to be reimbursed any necessary expenditures made by him for the purpose of protecting and preserving the property.33 One who has a right to redeem even after foreclosure sale, because not made a party to the foreclosure proceeding, must ordinarily pay the amount of the mortgage debt, although this exceeds the amount paid by the purchaser at the sale.34 He redeems from the mortgage and not from the sale.

(Mass.) 276, 71 Am. Dec. 713; Martin v. Martin, 146 Mass. 517, 16 N. E. 413; Kidder v. Mcll-henny, 81 N. C. 123; Childs v. Childs, 10 Ohio St. 339, 75 Am. Dec. 512.

30. Mosier v. Norton, 83 111. 519; Stone v. Bartlett, 46 Me. 438; Davis v. Winn, 2 Allen (Mass.) Ill; Baker v. Pierson, 6 Mich. 522; Long v. Long, 111 Mo. 12, 19 S. W. 537; Page v. Foster, 7 N. H. 392; Parker v. Child, 25 N. J. Eq. 41; Robinson v. Ryan, 25 N. Y. 320; McCormick v. Knox, 105 U. S. 122, 26 L. Ed. 940.

31. Dozier v. Mitchell, 65 Ala. 511; Blair v. Chamblin, 39 111. 521. 89 Am. Dec. 322; Sanders v. Peck, 131 111. 407, 25 N. E. 508; Strong v. Burdick, 52 Iowa, 630, 3 N. W. 707; Williams v. Hilton, 35 Me. 547; Dooley v. Potter, 146 Mass 148, 15 N. E. 499; Sanborn Co. v.

Though a person has an undivided interest only in the mortgaged premises, or owns a part only in severalty, he must, as a general rule, offer to pay the entire mortgage debt, since the mortgagee is entitled to retain his lien on every part of the land until his debt is entirely paid.35 And, accordingly, a widow, entitled to dower, who desires to redeem, must pay the whole amount of the debt, and not merely one-third thereof.36 One may, however, redeem part of the land by payment of part of the debt, if the holder of the mortgage assents.37 It may at times be to the advantage of one having an interest in the land to redeem the whole by paying the full amount of the mortgage debt rather than to redeem a part by paying a proportionate amount, but it has been decided that the right to elect in this regard belongs not to him but to the mortgage creditor.38 Occasionally the mortgage creditor has been allowed to choose whether there shall be a redemption of the whole, or whether he shall relinquish all claim as regards the part belonging to the person seeking to redeem.39

Alston, 153 Mich. 456, 117 N. W. 625; Gooch v. Botts, 110 Mo. 469, 20 S. W. 192; Dale v. M'Evers, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 118; Sidenberg v. Ely, 90 N. Y. 257; Shepard v. Vincent. 38 Wash. 493; Carstens & Earles v. Seattle, 88 Wash. 632, 153 Pac. 1080.

32. Harper v. Ely, 70 111. 581; Jehnson v. Hosford, 110 Ind. 572, 10 N. E. 407, 12 N. E. 522; American Button Hole, etc., Co. v. Burlington Mut. Loan Ass'n, 68 Iowa, 326, 27 N. W. 271; Carr v. Hodge, 130 Mass. 55; Neale v. Albertson, 39 N. J. Eq. 382; Walton v. Hollywood, 47 Mich. 385, 11 N. W. 209; Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Drown, 51 Wis. 419, 8 N. W. 237.

33. Miller v. Peter, 158 Mich. 336, 122 N. W. 780, and cases cited, ante, Sec. 615.

34. Wood v. Holland, 53 Ark. 69, 13 S. W. 739 (semble); Bradley v. Snyder, 14 111. 263, 58 Am. Dec. 564; Iowa Co. v. Beeson, 55 Iowa, 262, 7 N. W. 597; Evans v. Kahr, 60 Kan. 719, 57 Pac. 950, 58 Pac. 467; Martin v. Friedly, 23 Minn. 13; Large v. Van Doren, 14 N. J. Eq. 208; Benedict v. Gilman, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 58; Childs v. Childs, 10 Ohio St. 339, 75 Am. Dec. 512; Collins v. Riggs. 14 Wall. (U. S.) 491, 20 L. Ed. 723.

35. Tilley v. Davis, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 604; Palk v. Clinton, 12 Ves. 59; Casinella v. Allen, 168 Cal. 677, 144 Pac. 746; Franklin v. Gorham, 2 Day (Conn.) 142, 2 Am. Dec. 86; Andreas v. Hubbard, 50 Conn. 351; Meacham v. Steele, 93 111. 135; Street v. Beal, 16 Iowa, 68, 85 Am. Dec. 504; Smith v. Kelley, 27 Me. 237, 46 Am. Dec.

The rule requiring one having an interest in part or an undivided share of the land, to redeem the whole by paying the full amount of the mortgage debt, has been held not to apply when the other part or share belongs to the holder of the mortgage, and such part is primarily or proportionately liable under the in-cumibrance.40

-Tacking unsecured claims. Applying the maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity, it has been held in some states that the mortgagor cannot ob595; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 146; Merritt v. Hosmer, 11 Gray (Mass.) 276, 71 Am. Dec. 713; Bell v. City of New York, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 49; Coffin v. Parker, 127 N. Y. 117, 27 N. E. 814; Merrimon v. Parkey, 136 Tenn. 645, 191 S. W. 327.

36. McCabe v. Bellows, 7 Gray '(Mass.) 148, 66 Am. Dec. 467;

Merselis v. Van Riper, 55 N. J. Eq. 618, 38 Atl. 196.

37. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 133 111. 368, 27 N. E. 91;

Kerse v. Miller, 169 Mass. 44, 47 N. E. 504.

38. Robinson v. Fife, 3 Ohio St. 551. See Kirkham v. Dupont, 14 Cal. 559.

39. Boqut v. Coburn, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 230; Wilson v. Tarter, 22 Ore. 504, 30 Pac. 499.

40. Bradley v. George, 2 Allen (Mas.) 392; Tillinghast v. Fry, 1 R. I. 53. A like holding was made when the mortgagee had purchased at the foreclosure sale and thereafter sold portions of the tain a decree for redemption unless he pays not only the mortgage debt and interest, but also all other debts due by him to the mortgage creditor.41 In other states, however, as in England, it is held that the mortgagee cannot thus charge collateral dehts against the mortgaged property.42 And even in the former class of states, one other than the mortgagor, who seeks to redeem, is under no obligation to pay other debts due by the mortgagor, and not by himself.43 The right thus to tack collateral debts for the purpose of foreproperty to others. Dukes v. Turner. 44 Iowa, 575. See Robinson v. Fife, 3 Ohio St. 551,