As between a mortgagor in possession of the property and the mortgagee, it is for the former, and not the latter, to pay the taxes,99 and if he fails to do so and the mortgagee is compelled to pay them in order to protect his mortgage interest, he is subrogated to the state's lien therefor, and may add the amount of his payment to the mortgage debt for purposes of foreclosure or redemption.1 There are, in several states, statutory provisions declaratory of this right.

96. Hicklin v. Mfrco, 46 Fed. 424; Ensign v. Batterson, 68 Conn. 298, 36 Atl. 51; Blair v. Chamblii;, 39 111. 521, 89 Am. Dec. 322; Bradley v. Merrill, 88 Me. 319, 34 Atl. 160; McSorley v. Larissa, 100 Mass. 270; Millard v. Truax, 73 Mich. 381, 14 N. W. 32S; Bacon v Cottrell, 13 Minn. 194; Cram v. Cottrell, 48 Neb. 646, 58 Am. St. Rep. 714, 67 N W 452; Mickies v. Dillaye, 17 N. Y. 80; Gillis v. Martin, 17 N. C 470, 25 Am. Dec. 729; Harper's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 315; Morgan v. Walbridge; 56 Vt. 405; Sloane v. Lucas, 37 Wash. 348, 79 Pac. 949; Liskay v. Snyder, 66 W. Va. 149, 66 3. E. 702; Hadlfcy v. Stewart, 65 Wis. 481, 27 N. W. 340. But ir Miller v. Curry, 124 Ind. 48, 24 N. E. 219, 374, it was held that the fact that the mortgagee supposed that he had an absolute conveyance did not entitle him to an allowance for improvements.

97. Ante, Sec. 214.

98. Merriam v. Goss 139 Mass. 77, 28 N. E. 443. Halbart v. Turner, 233 111. 531, 84 N. E. 704; Wilson v. Fisher, 148 N. C. 535. 62 S. E. 622; Donovan v. Smith, - (N. J. Ch.) -. 8S Atl. 167.

99. Medley v. Elliott, 62 111. 532; Waterson v. Devoe, 18 Kan. 223; Tinslar v. Davis, 12 Allen (Mass.) 79; Williams v. Hilton, 35 Me. 547, 58 Am. Dec. 729, Pond v. Drake, 50 Mich. 302, 15 N. W. 466; Townsend v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 31 Neb. 836, 48 N. W. 899. Eastman v. Thayer, 60 N. H. 408; Price v. Salisbury, 41 Okla. 416, L. R. A. 1917 B, 520, 138 Pac. 1024. It is immaterial whether the taxes were assessed before or after the date of the mortgage. Curtis v. Curtis, 180 Ala. 70, 60 So. 165.

1. Lester v Richardson, 69 Ark. 198, 62 S. W. 62; Weinreica v. Hensley, 121 Cal. 647, 54 Pac. 254; Pratt v. Pratt, 96 111. 184; Schissel v. Dickson, 129 Ind. 139,

It has been occasionally decided that this claim for reimbursement of the amount paid for taxes can be asserted only as a part of the claim under the mort-i»ai;e, and that if not so asserted, the right thereto La lost.2 A different view has, however, been declared, to the effect that the mortgagee's right to be subrogated to the state's lien remains even after foreclosure sale3 And in one state a mortgagee paying the taxes has been held to be entitled to bring assumpsit against the mortgagor for the amount of the payment.4

Since a mortgagee, paying taxes in order to protect his interest in the property, is entitled to be subrogated, on equitable principles, to the lien of the state for taxes, his claim for reimbursement should, it would seem, take priority over a senior mortgage, and it has been so decided.5

If the mortgagee is in possession, it is for him, so far at least as the rents and profits suffice for the pur28 N. E. 540; Williams v. Hilton, 35 Me. 547, 58 Am. Dec. 729; Hopkins v. Sanders, 172 Mich. 227, 137 N. W. 709; Gooch v. Botts, 110 Mo. 419, 20 S. W. 192; Siden-berg v. Ely, 90 N. Y. 257; Bates v. Peoples' Sav. etc. Ass'n. 42 Ohio St. 655; Dunsmuir v. Port Angeles Gas, Water, Electric Light & Power Co., 30 Wash. 586, 71 Pac. 9.

2. McCrossen v. Harris, 35 Kan. 178, 10 Pac. 583; Vincent v. Moore, 51 Mich. 618, 17 N. W. 81; Horrigan v. Wellmuth, 77 Mo. 542; Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 67; Young v. Brand, 15 Neb. 601, 19 N. W. 494; Stone v. Tilley, 100 Tex. 487, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 678, 123 Am. St. Rep. 819, 15 Ann. Cas. 524, 101 S. W. 201.

3. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Newell, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 293, 28 N. Y.

Supp. 913; see Farmer v. Ward, 75 N. J. Eq. 33, 71 Atl. 401 (statute).

4. Hogg v. Longstreth, 97 Pa. 255. Contra, Gorham v. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 62 Minn. 327, 64 N. W. 906; Stone v. Tilley, 100 Tex. 487, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 678, 123 Am. St. Rep. 819, 15 Ann. Cas. 524, 101 S. W. 201.

5. Ringo v. Woodruff, 43 Ark. 469; Atchison Sav. Bank v. Wy-man, 65 Kan. 314, 69 Pac. 326; Noeker v. Howry, 119 Mich. 626, 78 N. W. 669; Norton v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 74 Minn. 4S4, 77 N. W. 298, 539; Chrisman v. Hough, 146 Mo. 102, 47 S. \V. 941; Fiacre v. Chapman, 32 N. J. Eq. 463; Fischer v. Woodruff, 25 Wash. 67, 87 Am. St. Rep. 742, 64 Pac. 923 (payment in ignorance of prior mtge); Allison pose, to pay the taxes,6 and for the amount so paid he will be credited upon foreclosure or redemption.7

The mortgagor being under an obligation to the mortgagee to pay the taxes cannot leave them unpaid and buy the property at the tax sale,8 and his transferee is in a like position.9

A junior mortgagee stands in the same position as the owner of the land in this regard, and cannot purchase at a sale for taxes on the property, and assert v Corson, 83 Fed. 752 (semble). But see Hill v. Buffington, 106 Wis. 525.

6. Shoemaker v. The Bank, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 297; Williams v. Hilton, 35 Me. 547, 58 Am. Dec. 729.

7. Pollard v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 So. 767; Murdock v. Clarke, 90 Cal. 427, 27 Pac. 275; Dubois v. Bowles, 30 Colo. 44, 69 Pac. 1067; Roberts v. Fleming, 53 111. 196; Dooley v. Potter, 146 Mass. 148, 15 N. E. 499; Martin v. Len-non, 19 Minn. 67; Bourgeois v. Gapen, 58 Neb. 364, 78 N. W. 639; Lysle v. Williams, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 135; Howard v. Clark, 72 Vt. 429, 48 Atl. 656; Savings & Loan Society v. Davidson, 97 Fed. 696, 38 C. C. A. 365.

8. Barnard v. Wilson, 74 Cal. 512, 16 Pac. 307; Goodrich v. Kim-berly, 48 Conn. 395; Jordan v. Sayre, 29 Fla. 100, 10 So. 823; McAlpine v. Zitzer, 119 111. 273, 10 N. E. 901; Shrigley v. Black. 66 Kan. 213, 71 Pac. 301; Nielsen v. Central Nebraska Land & Investment Co., 87 Neb. 518, 127 N. W. 897; Kezer v. Clifford, 59 N. H. 208; Ryan v. Martin, 104 N. C. 176, 10 S. E. 169; Interstate to base the doctrine of these decisions appears to be that, it being for the advantage of the state that taxes be promptly paid, and the right to purchase at tax sale being unnecessary for the protection of the mortgagee, it is against public policy to allow the mortgagee, by leaving the taxes unpaid, to acquire a tax title and so save the costs of foreclosure.14 In some jurisdictions the view has been taken that, there being no relation of trust, the mortgagee, if he is not in possession, can by purchase at tax sale acquire a good title as against the mortgagor.15 But in any state, it seems, if the mortgagee is in possession and receipt of the rents and profits, he is under an obligation to pay the taxes therefrom, at least so far as they are sufficient for the purpose, and if the property is sold for taxes by reason of his failure so as to do, he cannot purchase at the tax sale, and his purchase amounts merely to a payment of the taxes.16 Likewise if he agrees to pay the taxes he is precluded from purchasing the land at a sale for non payment thereof.17