Any contractual obligation reducible to a money value may be secured by a mortgage.73 The obligation secured is ordinarily one for the payment of money, created at the time of the execution and dev. Gau, 138 Minn. 34, 163 N. W. 982; Catlett v. Bacon, 33 Miss. 269; Feldman v. Gamble, 26 N. J. Eq. 494; Briggs v. Langford, 107 N. Y. 680, 14 N. E. 502; First Nat. Bank v. Robinson. 188 N. Y. 45, 80 N. E. 567; Messiah Home v. Rogers, 212 N. Y. 315, 106 N. E. 59; Larson v. Butler, 26 N. D. 426, 144 N. W. 1077; Grebe v. Swords, 28 N. D. 330, 149 N. W. 126; Deming Inv. Co. v. Shannon, - Okla. -, 162 Pac. 471; Cawley v. Kelley, 60 Wis. 315, 19 N. W. 65. And see particularly the discussion in Perkins v. Trinity Realty Co., 69 N. J. Eq. 723, 61

Atl. 167, 71 N. J. Eq. 304, 71 Atl. 1135.

71. Bucklin v. Bucklin, 1 Abb. Dec. 242; Fitzgerald v. Forristal, 48 111. 228; Campbell v. Tompkins, 32 N. J. Eq. 170; Risley v. Parker, 50 N. J. Eq. 284, 23 Atl. 424; Brigham v. Brown, 44 Mich. 59, 6 N. W. 97 (dictum).

72. 2 Ames, Cases on Bills & Notes, 642; Norton, Bills and Notes (3rd Ed.) 278; 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., Sec. 1148; editorial note, 16 Columbia Law Rev. 606.

73. Cook v. Bartholomew, 60 Conn. 24, 22 Atl. 444; Dover Lumlivery of the mortgage instrument. The mortgage may however secure an obligation previously existing, an antecedent debt,74 or it may secure an obligation or obligations to arise in the future, as when it is made to secure future advances, that is, loans which may subsequently be made,75 or to secure indemnity to one on account of possible future losses by reason of a contract of guaranty or suretyship entered into by him. An indemnity mortgage of this character is quite frequently assumed to be invalid unless supported by a consideration.76 But it may be questioned whether this ordinarily means more than that if the mortgagee subjects himself to no legal liability, a mortgage made for the sole purpose of indemnifying him against liability is nugatory.77 And this appears to accord with the fact that a mortgage is valid though given merely to indemnify the mortgagee against liabilities previously assumed by him,78 or which he may thereafter voluntarily assume.79

Mortgage to secure support. Ordinarily, as ber Co. v. Case, 31 Idaho, 276, 170 Pac. 108.

74. Ante, Sec. 606, note 66a.

75. See, e. g., Hamilton v. Rhodes, 72 Ark. 625, 83 S. W. 351; American Sav. Bank v. Kemp, 21 Cal. App. 571, 132 Pac. 617; Strae-fer v. Rodman, 146 Ky. 1, 141 S. W. 742; Miller v. Ward, 111 Me. 134, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 122, 88 Atl. 400; Diggs v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 112 Md. 50, 75 Atl. 517; Collins v. Gregg, 109 Iowa, 506, 80 N. W. 562; Reed v. Roch-ford, 62 N. J. Eq. 186, 50 Atl. 70.

76. Duncan v. Miller, 64 Iowa, 223, 20 N. W. 161; Brooks v. Owen, 112 Mo. 251, 19 S. W. 723, 20 S. W. 492; Landigan v. Mayer, 32 Ore. 245, 67 Am. St. Rep. 521,

51 Pac. 649; Williams v. Silli-man, 74 Tex. 626, 12 S. W. 534; Burt v. Gamble, 98 Mich. 402, 57 N. W. 261.

77. See Peets v. Wilson, 19 La. 478; Fagan v. Thompson, 38 Fed. 467.

78. Steen v. Stretch, 50 Neb. 572, 70 N. W. 48; Empire State Surety Co. v. Ballou, 66 Wash. 76, 118 Pac. 923.

79. Rice v. Groves, 70 Hun. (N. Y.) 74, 23 N. Y. Supp. 936; In re Essex Land, etc. Co., 21 Ont. 367; Stokes v. Howerton, 67 N. C. 50; Courier-Journal Job-Printing Co. v. Schaefer-Meyer Brewing Co., 101 Fed. 699, 41 C. C. A. 614.

An agreement to support is prima facie of a personal character, and consequently the mortgagor cannot delegate the duty to another, even though such other be one to whom he transfers his interest in the land,80 and so the person who is to be supported can79a. Ante, Sec. 89.

79b. Cook v. Bartholomew, 60 Conn. 24, 13 L. R. A. 452, 22 Atl. 444; Butterfield v. Lane, 114 Me. 333, 96 Atl. 233; Gilson v. Gilson. 2 Allen (Mass.) 115; Hawkins v. Clermont, 15 Mich. 511; Bach-meier v. Bachmeier, 69 Minn. 472, 72 N. W. 710; Chase v. Peck, 21 N. Y. 581; Coleman v. Whitney, 62 Vt. 123, 9 L. R. A. 517, 20 Atl. 322.

79c. Cook v. Bartholomew, 60 Conn. 24, 13 L. It. A. 452, 22 Atl. 444; Bryant v. Erskine, 55 Me.

153; Bethlehem v. Annis. 40 N. H. 34, 77 Am. Dec. 700; Chase v. Peck, 21 N. Y. 581; Henry v. Tapper, 29 Vt. 358.

79d. Gilson v. Gilson, 2 Allen (Mass.) 115; Soper v. Guernsey, 71 Pa. St. 219.

79e. Cook v. Bartholomew, 60 Conn. 24, 13 L. R. A. 452, 22 Atl. 444; Tuttle v. Burgett, 53 Ohio St. 498, 30 L. R. A. 214, 53 Am. St. Rep. 649, 42 N. E. 427.

80. Bryant v. Erskine, 55 Me. 153; Greenleaf v. Grounder, 86 Me. 298, 29 Atl. 1082; Bethlehem not transfer his rights under the mortgage, and thereby enable another to assert a forfeiture, even though the latter furnished the support.81

(b) Personal liability. The obligation to secure the performance of which a mortgage is most usually given is the payment of an ascertained sum of money, and in such a case there is ordinarily executed, contemporaneously with the execution of the mortgage, a bond or note involving a personal obligation upon the part of the mortgagor, or occasionally of another person, for the payment of such sum. Such a separate instrument evidencing a personal liability is not, however, necessary to the validity of the mortgage,82 and in its absence the mortgagor may be personally liable, by reason of an express covenant in the mortgage instrument, or the mortgagor or a third person may be so liable by reason of an oral contract to pay the sum secured.83 And if there is no express contract, oral or written, to pay the sum secured, a contract to that effect may be inferred from the conduct of the parties.84

A mortgage is valid and effective as such only if, and in so far as, it secures a valid claim or obligation,85 but there need not be a personal liability on the part v. Annis, 40 N. H. 34, 77 Am. Dec. 700; Flanders v. Lamphear, 9 N. H. 201. That the heir of the mortgagor is not entitled to furnish the support after the mortgagor's death, see Ridley v. Ridley, 87 Me. 545, 32 Atl. 1005.