If two or more mortgages upon the same property are executed and delivered on the same day, somewhat difficult questions of priority may arise.52 Occasionally the courts have indicated an unwillingness to consider fractions of a day in this connection,53 but such a tendency does not appear in the later decisions. If the different mortgages constitute entirely distinct transactions, one not being made with reference to the making of the other, the fact that one was executed and delivered earlier than the other may have a controlling effect.54 Quite usually, however, when mortgages are thus executed on the same day, they are not independent transactions, but each mortgagee takes his mortgage with knowledge of the other, and they are consequently regarded as constituting one transaction. In such case, if no showing is made as to an understanding between the parties as to priorities, they would ordinarily share pro rata in the proceeds of foreclosure,55 while if any such understanding is shown it will control.56

47. Post, Sec. 661.

48. Ante, Sec. 567(m). 49 Ante, Sec. 567(1).

50. Alston v. Marshall, 112 Ala. 638. 20 So. 850; Austin v. Pulschen, 112 Cal. 528. 44 Pac. 788; Broward v. Hoeg, 15 Fla. S70; Parker v. Barnesville Sav. Bank, 107 Ga. 650, 34 S. E. 365; Bradley v. Luce, 99 111. 234; Rob-bins v. Moore, 129 111. 30, 21 N. E. 934; Michener v. Bengel, 135 Ind. 188, 34 N. E. 664, 816; Parsons v. Crocker, 128 Iowa, 641, 105 N. W. 162; State v. Matthews, 44

Kan. 596, 10 L. R. A. 308. 25 Pac. 36; Mairs v. Oxford Bank, 58 Miss. 919; Cook v. Jack, 78 N. J. Eq. 584, 81 Atl. 1110; Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 45 Ohio St. 152, 166, 12 N E. 439; Landigan v. Mayer, 32 Ore. 245, 67 Am. St. Rep. 521, 51 Pac. 649; Simmons Hardware Co. v. Kaufman, 77 Tex. 131, 8 S. W. 283; Yancey v. Blakemore, 95 Va. 263, 28 S. E. 336; Bader v. Johnson, 78 Wash. 350, 139 Pac. 32. 51. Ante, Sec. 574(b).

52. In some states (see ante, 602) the time of acceptance may be decisive on the question of priority, though the mortgages are delivered simultaneously. See Utley v. Dunkelberger, 86 Iowa, 469, 53 N. W. 408.

53. Russell v. Carr, 38 Ga. 459; Oilman v. Moody, 43 N. H. 23.

54. Sanely v. Crapenhoft, 1 Neb. (Unof.) 8, 95 N. W. 532; GJgson v. Keyes, 112 Ind. 568, 14 N. E. 591; Wood v. Lordier, 115 Ind. 519, 18 N. E. 34.

55. See Lampkin v. First Nat. Bank. 96 Ga. 487, 23 S. E. 390; Schaeppi v. Glade, 195 111. 62, 62 N E. 874; Koevenig v. Schmitz, 71 Iowa, 175, 32 N. W. 320; Dahl-strom v. Unknown Claimants, 156 Iowa, 187, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 524, 135 N. W. 567; Swayze v. Schuyler, 59 N. J. Eq. 75, 45 Atl.

347; Granger v. Crouch, 86 N. Y. 494; Perry's Appeal, 22 Pa. St. 43, 60 Am. Dec. 63; compare Naylor v. Throckmorton, 7 Leigh (Va.) 98, 30 Am. Dec. 492.

56. Coleman v. Carhart, 74 Ga. 392; Trustees of Iowa College v. Fenno, 67 Iowa, 244, 25 N. W. 152; Corbin v. Kincaid, 33 Kan. 649, 7 Pac. 145; Pomeroy v. Lat-ting, 15 Gray (Mass.) 435; Gil-man v. Moody, 43 N. H. 23; Jones v. Phelps, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 440; Stafford v. Van Rensselaer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 316; Thomas v. Equitable Building & Loan Ass'n, 215 Pa. 259, 64 Atl. 531; Trom-pezynski v. Struck, 105 Wis. 437, 81 N. W. 650. In Pomeroy v. Latting, 15 Gray (Mass.) 435, such an understanding was inferred from the purposes for which and the circumstances

In regard to the effect of priority of record upon the priority of mortgages thus executed on the same day, it is to be observed that if their execution is simultaneous, one cannot be regarded as subsequent to the other and consequently neither would conic within the protection of the ordinary recording law.57 And such law, moreover, is not applicable when, as is frequently the case, one mortgagee takes his mortgage with notice of the other.58