A mortgagor who is in possession of the land is entitled to receive and apply to his own use the rents and profits of the land;20 and this is so, even when the mortgage expressly includes rents and profits.21 It

16. Dutton v. Warschauer, 21 Cal. 609, 82 Am. Dec. 765; Spect v. Spect, 88 Cal. 437, 13 L. R. A. 137, 22 Am. St. Rep. 314, 26 Pac. 203; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39, 12 Am. St. Rep. 613, 38 N. W. 765; Brundage v. Home Savings & Loan Ass'n, 11 Wash. 277, 39 Pac. 666; Edwards v. Wray. 12 Fed. 42; Pettit v. Louis, 88 Neb. 496, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 356, 129 N. W. 1005.

17. See Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 45b.

18. Teal v. Walker, 111 U. S. 242, 28 L. Ed. 415; Orr v. Bennett, 135 Minn. 443, 161 N. W. 165.

19. Ante, this section, notes 95-7.

20. Teal v. Walker, 111 U. S. 242, 28 L. Ed. 415; Brickey v. Cotter, 119 Ark. 543, 178 S. W. 370; Simpson v. Ferguson, 112 Cal. 180, 53 Am. St. Rep. 201, 40 Pac. 104, 44 Pac. 484; Harrison v. Wyse, 24 Conn. 1, 63 Am. Dec. 151; Cross v. Will County Nat. Bank, 177 III. 3, 52 N. E. 322; White v. Redenbaugh, 41 Ind. App. 580, 82 N. E. 110; Boston Bank v. Reed, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 462; Killebrew v. Hines, 104 N. C. 182, 17 Am. St. Rep. 672, 10 S. E. 159, 251; Hardin v. Hardin, 34 S. C. 77, 27 Am. St. Rep. 786, 12 S. E. 936; Childs v. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66, 87, 9 S. E. 362.

21. Gilman v. Illinois & M. Tel.

3 R. P. - 11 has been decided in one state that the mortgagor's right to rents and profits ceases in favor of the mortgagee so soon as the latter, being entitled to the possession, makes demand on him therefor,22 and there are occasional dicta to this effect.23 Such a view seems more or less in harmony with the doctrine that the mortgagee, entitled to possession, may, by making-demand, acquire a right to the rent subsequently to be paid by a lessee of the premises.24

In case there is a specific pledge of the rents and profits as additional security, the mortgagee, although not in possession, is entitled to have the rents and profits applied upon the debt, through the appointment of a receiver or otherwise.25

(b) Crops. The mortgagor, retaining possession of the mortgaged property, is entitled to gather the annual crops thereon.26 This right ordinarily conCo., 91 U. S. 603, 23 L. Ed. 405; Freeman v. Campbell, 109 Cal. 360, 42 Pac. 35; In re Life Ass'n of America, 96 Mo. 632; Mississippi Valley & W. Ry. Co. v. United States Express Co., 81 III. 534.

22. Barron v. Whiteside, 89 Md. 448, 43 Atl. 825.

23. Dow v. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 124 U. S. 652, 31 L. Ed. 565; Freedman's Saving & Trust Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U. S. 494, 502, 32 L. Ed. 163; See Childs v. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66, 9 S. E. 362. But see dicta in Elmore v. Symonds, 183 Mass. 321, 67 N. E. 314; Field v. Swan, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 112, 114.

24. Post, Sec. 614, note 79.

25. Freedman's Saving & Trust Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U. S. 494, 502, 32 L. Ed. 163; Pullan v. Cincinnati & C. Air-Line R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 11,462, 5 Biss. 237; Bank of Woodland v. Christie, 130 Cal. XVIII, 62 Pac. 400; McLester v. Rose, 104 III. App. 433. See post, Sec. 613(d).

26. Simpson v. Ferguson, 112 Cal. 180, 53 Am. St. Rep. 201, 40 Pac. 104, 44 Pac. 484; Tobey v. Reed, 9 Conn. 216; Perley v. Chase, 79 Me. 519, 11 Atl. 418; Chelton v. Green, 65 Md. 272, 4 Atl. 271; Reily v. Carter, 75 Miss. 798, 65 Am. St. Rep. 621, 23 So. 435; Monday v. O'Neill, 44 Neb. 724, 48 Am. St. Rep. 760, 63 N. W. 32; Sexton v. Breese, 135 N. Y. 387, 32 N. E. 133; Hamblet v. Bliss, 55 Vt. 535; Gregory v. Ros-enkrans, 72 Wis. 220, 1 L. R. A. 176, 39 N. W. 378; Laing v. Ontario Loan & Savings Co., 46 U. C. Q. B. 114; Ex parte Temple, 1 Gl. & J. 216.

Tinues until foreclosure,27 until a receiver is appointed to sequestrate the rents and profits of the property 28 or, in jurisdictions in which the mortgagee is entitled to assert a right to the possession of the land, until the mortgagee acquires the possession.29

It being recognized that the actual severance of the crop from the land, by the mortgagor or under his authority, takes it out of the operation of the mortgage, the question arises whether the same result may be attained by a constructive severance,30 that is, whether the mortgagor may, by merely selling or mortgaging the growing crop, to that extent displace the prior mortgage on the land. The weight of authority is to the effect that a sale or mortgage of the crop, not followed by an actual severance before foreclosure of the mortgage on the land, is ineffective as against one claiming under the foreclosure,31 though if there is an actual severance before foreclosure the vendee or mortgagee of the crop is, it seems, protected in his claim to the crop.32 In a few states, on the other hand, cisions were based primarily upon local statutory provisions requiring the land to be appraised before sale, and the sale to be at a price bearing a certain proportion to its appraised value, taken in connection with the fact that the value of the annual crops was not included in the appraisal.39

27. Perley v. Chase, 79 Me. 519, 11 Atl. 418. See post, notes 37, 38.

28. Post, Sec. 613(d).

29. Gilman v. Wells, 66 Me. 273; Bangor Sav. Bank v. Wallace, 87 Me. 28, 32 Atl. 716; Porter v. Hubbard, 134 Mass. 233; Hamblet v. Bliss, 55 Vt. 535.

30. Ante, Sec. 261.

31. Thompson v. Union Warehouse Co., 110 Ala. 499, 18 So. 105; Penryn Fruit Co. v. Sherman-Worrell Fruit Co., 142 Cal. 643, 100 Am. St. Rep. 150, 76 Pac. 484 (but see Simpson v. Ferguson, 112 Cal. 180, 53 Am. St. Rep. 201, 40 Pac. 104, 44 Pac. 484); Adams v. Beadle, 47 Iowa 439; Beckman v. Sikes, 35 Kan. 120, 10 Pac. 592 (immature crop); Woot-ton v. White, 90 Md. 64, 78 Am.

St. Rep. 425, 44 Atl. 1026; More-land v. Strong, 115 Mich. 211, G9 Am. St. Rep. 553, 73 N. W. 140; Reilly v. Carter, 75 Miss. 798, 65 Am. St. Rep. 621, 23 So. 435; Bat-terman v. Albright, 122 N. Y. 484, 11 L. R. A. 800, 19 Am. St. Rep. 510, 25 N. E. 856; Jones v. Adams, 37 Ore. 473, 50 L. R. A. 388, 82 Am. St. Rep. 766, 59 Pac. 811, 62 Pac. 16; Bloomfield v. Hellyer, 22 Ont. App. 232. So in the case of a sale of the crop under execution against the mortgagor, Anderson v. Strauss, 98 III. 485; Shepard v. Philbrick, 2 Denio, (N. Y.) 174.