The mortgagee is entitled to pay off an incumbrance on the land prior to his mortgage, in order to protect the latter, and may claim a credit for the amount so paid, he being subrogated to the rights of the incumbrancer,88 and on a like principle he is entitled to be repaid, as part of the mortgage debt, any expenditures by him for taxes on the property.89 He is also entitled to recover reasonable expenses incurred in defending the mortgagor's title.90 He can claim reimbursement for insurance premiums paid by him, if the mortgagor agreed to insure and failed to do so.91

The mortgagee is not usually allowed for his personal services in connection with the management of the premises, though he may charge for the services of a bailiff whom it is necessary to employ.92

Repairs and improvements. The mortgagee in possession is allowed for the cost of any necessary repairs made by him.93 He can claim to be reimbursed for improvements, as distinct from repairs, if these are necessary for the proper enjoyment or use of the premises, but not usually if they are merely calculated to render the property more desirable.94 But a mortgagee in possession or one standing in his place, as a purchaser under a void foreclosure sale,95 who, in the reasonable belief that he has the absolute title to the land, makes lasting improvements thereon, is usually allowed therefor in a proceeding by the mortgagor for

Brown v. Storey, 1 Man. & G. 117; Gartside v. Outley, 58 111. 210; Drakford v. Turk, 75 Ala. 339, 51 Am. Rep. 454.

88 McCormick v. Knox, 105 U. S. 122, 26 L. Ed. 940; Harper -•'. Ely, 70 111. 581; Arnold v. Foot, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 66; Davis v. Winn, 2 Allen (Mass.) Ill; Comstock v. Michael, 17 Neb. 288, 22 N. W. 549; Weld v. Sabin, 20 N. H. 53, 51 Am. Dec. 240; Hubbell v. Moulson, 53 N. Y. 225, 13 Am. Rep. 519.

89. Post, Sec. 615.

90. Godfrey v. Watson, 3 Atk. 517; Miller v. Whittier, 36 Me. 577; Riddle v. Bowman, 27 N. H. 236; Clark v. Smith, 1 N. J. Eq. 122.

91. Harper v. Ely, 70 111. 581; Stinchfield v. Milliken, 71 Me. 567; Fowley v. Palmer, 5 Gray (Mass.) 549.

92. 4 Kenfs Comm, 166; Godfrey v. Watson, 3 Atk 577; Ben-ham v. Rowe, 2 Cal. 387, 56 Am. Dec. 342; Harper v. Ely, 70 111. 581; Breckenridge v. Brooks, 2 A. K. Marsh (Ky.) 335, 12 Am. Dec. 401; Barnard v. Patterson, 137 Mich. 633, 100 N. W. 893; Turner v. Johnson, 95 Mo. 431, 6 Am. St. Rep. 62, 7 S. W. 570; Bourgeois v. Gapen, 5? Neb. 364, 78 N. W. 639, Elmer v. Loper, 25 N. J. Eq. 475; Moore v. Cable, 1 Johns Ch. (N. Y.) 385; Lynch v. Ryan, 137 Wis. 13, 118 N. W. 174. In a few jurisdictions, however, the mortgagee is allowed a commission en rents collected by him. Waterman v. Curtis, 26 Conn. 241; Walter v. Calhoun, 88 Kan. 801, 129 Pac. 1176; Bradley v. Merrill, 91 Me. 340, 40 Atl. 132; Gerrish v. Black, 104 Mass. 400.

93. American Freehold Land Mortg. Co. of London v. Pollard, 132 Ala. 155, 32 So. 630; Caldwell v. Hall, 49 Ark. 508, 4 Am. St. Rep. 64, 1 S. W. 62; Hidden v. Jordan, 28 Cal. 301; McCumber v. Gilman, 15 111. 381; Sparhawk v. Wills, 5 Gray (Mass.) 423; Bourgeois v. Gapen, 58 Neb. 364, 78 N. W. 639; Adkins v. Lewis. 5 Ore., 292; Harper's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 315; Lowndes v. Chisolm, 2 McCord. Eq. (S. C.) 455, 16 Am. Dec. 687; Dewey v. Brownell, 54 Vt. 441; Liskey v. Snyder, 66 W. Va. 149, 66 S. E. 702; Lynch v. Ryan, 137 Wis. 13, 118 N. W. 174 But Barthell v. Syverson, 54 Iowa, 160. appears to be contra.

94. Whetstone v. McQueen, 137 Ala. 301, 34 So. 229; Robertson v. Read, 52 Ark. 381, 20 Am. St. Rep. 188, 14 S. W. 387; Morgan v. Mahony, 127 Ark. 483, 187 S. W. 633; Malone v. Roy, 107 Cal. 518, 4G Pac. 1040; McCumber v. Gil-man, 15 111. 381; Miller v. Curry, 124 Ind. 48, 24 N. E. 219, 374; Horn v. Indianapolis Nat. Bank, 125 Ind. 381, 9 L. R. A. 676, 21 Am. St. Rep. 231, 25 N. E. 558; Fort v. Colby, 165 Iowa, 95, 144 N. W.

393; Dougherty v. McColgan, 6 Gill. & J. (Md.) 275; Bradley v. Merrill, 88 Me. 319, 34 Atl. 160; Moore v. Cable, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 385; Adkins v. Lewis, 5 Ore. 292; Caro v. Wollenberg, 83 Ore. 311, 163 Pac. 94; Froelich v. Swafford, 33 S. D. 142, 144 N. W. 925; Wells v. Van Dyke, 109 Pa. St. 330.

The mortgagor is, of course, bound to allow for the improvements If he consented to the making of them by the mortgagee. Fort v. Colby, 165 Iowa, 95, 144 N. W. 393; Bradley v. Merrill, 88 Me. 319; Cazenove v. Cutler, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 246; Lynch v. Ryan. 137 Wis. 13, 118 N. W. 174; Shepard v. Jones, 21 Ch. Div. 469, per Jessel, M. R.

In England the rule is more liberal to the mortgagee, and he is allowed for lasting improvements of a reasonable character, increasing the value of the property. Sandon v. Hooper, 6 Beav. 246; Shepard v. Jones, 21 Ch. Div. 469; Henderson v. Astwood [1894] App. Cas. 150.

95. See post, Sec. 646, note 22, Sec. 656, notes 87-9G.

3 R. P.-12 redemption,96 on the general equitable principle before referred to.97 And occasionally the courts show a disposition to allow, not the cost of the improvements, but the increase of value accruing therefrom.98