A mortgage given to secure advances which may be made in the future to the mortgagor, or liabilities to be assumed for him by the mortgagee in the future, is valid, even as against creditors and subsequent purchasers.81 It is, by the weight of authority, sufficient if the mortgage states that it is to secure future advances, without stating the total amount of such advances, since a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer is thereby put on inquiry as to the debt secured;82 while the failure mers v. Darne, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 791. But see Ahern v. White, 39 Md. 409.

80. Hopler v. Cutler, - N. J. Eq. -, 34 Atl. 746; Beebe v. Austin, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 477; Kneen v. Halin, 6 Idaho, 621, 59 Pac. 14. Contra, Heuisler v. Nic-kum, 38 Md. 270.

81. Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 34, 3 L. Ed. 260; Jones v. Guaranty & Indemnity Co., 101 V. S. 622, 25 L. Ed. 103-0; Tully v. Harloe, 35 Cal. 302, 95 Am. Dec. 102; Boswell v. Goodwin, 31 Conn. 74, 81 Am. Dec. 169; Collins v. Carlile, 13 111. 254; Commercial Bank v. Cunningham, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 370, 35. Am. Dec. 322; Summers v. Roos, 42 Miss. 749, 2 Am. Rep. 653; James v. Morey, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 246, 14 Am. Dec. 475; Robinson v. Williams, 22 N. Y. 380; Kramer v. Trustees of Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Steubenville, 15 Ohio, 253; Nicklin v, Betts Spring Co., 11 Ore. 406,

50 Am. Rep. 477, 5 Pac. 51; Mc-Daniels v. Colvin, 16 Vt. 300, 42 Am. Dec. 512; Heal v. Evans Creek Coal & Coke Co., 71 Wash. 225, 128 Pac. 211. In New Hampshire a statutory provision prohibits mortgages to secure future advances. Fessenden v. Taft, 65 N. H. 39, 17 Atl. 713; Staniels v. Whitcher, 72 N. H. 451. 57 Atl. 678.

82. Jarratt v. McDaniel, 32 Ark. 598; Allen v. Lathrop, 46 Ga. 133; Michigan Ins. Co. of Detroit v. Brown, 11 Mich. 266; Robinson v. Williams, 22 N. Y. 381; Keyes v. Bump's Adm'r, 59 Vt. 391, 9 Atl. 598. But see North v. Belden, 13 Conn. 376, 35 Am. Dec. 83; Balch v. Chaffee, 73 Conn. 318, 84 Am. St. Rep. 155, 47 Atl. 327, to the effect that such a mortgage is not effective as against a subsequent incumbrancer without actual notice that advances have been made thereunder. In Maryland the statute provides that no aortto state that future advances are secured is immaterial if the total amount of the possible indebtedness to be secured is named.83

A mortgage securing future advances is, it is agreed, valid, as against subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers with notice thereof, to the amount to which the mortgagee may have made advances before acquiring notice of the rights of such third persons.84

As to whether the mortgage constitutes a lien for advances made by the mortgagee, as against an incumbrance in favor of a third person, of which he has notice at the time of making the advances, the cases are not in accord. If the mortgagee is under no obligation to make advances, but the mortgage merely undertakes to secure him in so far as he may make them, he is, by the great weight of authority, not entitled to make them and claim a lien as against an intervening gage to secure future loans or advances shall be valid unless the amount or amounts thereof and the times at which they are to be made are specifically stated in the mortgage. Code Pub. Gen. Laws, art. 66, Sec. 2.

83. Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 34, 3 L. Ed. 260; Kirby v. Raynes, 138 Ala. 194, 100 Am. St Rep. 39, 35 So. 118; Tapia v. Demartini, 77 Cal. 383, 11 Am. St. Rep. 288, 19 Pac. 641; Tully v. Harloe, 35 Cal. 302, 95 Am. Dec. 102; Collins v. Carlile, 13 111. 254;. Louisville Banking Co. v. Leonard, 90 Ky. 106, 13 S. W. 521; Summers v. Roos, 42 Miss. 749, 2 Am. Rep. 653; Foster v. Reynolds. 38 Mo. 553; Griffin v. New Jersey Oil Co., 11 N. J. Eq. 49; Bell v. Fleming, 12 N. J. Eq. 13, 490; Hendrix v. Gore, 8 Ore. 406; Elackmar v. Sharp, 23 R. I. 412,

50 Atl. 852; Heal v. Evans Creek Cr.al & Coke Co., 71 Wash. 225, 128 Pac. 211.

84. Hopkinson v. Rolt, 9 H. L. Cas. 514; Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 34, 51, 3 L. Ed. 260; Tapia v. Demartini, 77 Cal. 383, 71 Am. St. Rep. 288, 19 Pac. 641; Boswell v. Goodwin, 31 Conn. 74; United States Trust Co. v. Lanahan, 50 N. J. Eq 796, 27 Atl. 1032; Robinson v. Williams, 22 N. Y. 380; Ackerman v. Hun-sicker, 85 N. Y. 43; Huntington v. Kneeland, 102 N. Y. App. Div. 284, 92 N. Y. Supp. 944; Union Nat. Bank of Oshkosh v. Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co., 7 N. D. 201, 73 N. W. 527; Spader v. Law-ler, 17 Ohio, 37, 49 Am. Dec. 461; McDaniels v. Colvin, 16 Vt. 300, 42 Am. Dec. 512; Alexandria Sav. Inst. v. Thomas, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 483.

85. Hopkinson v. Kolt, 9 H. L. C. 514; London & County Banking Co. v. Ratcliffe, 6 App. Cas. 722; Bradford Banking Co. v. Briggs, 12 App. Cas. 29; Hughes v. Building Society (1906), 2 Ch. 607; Saving & Loan Soc. v. Burnett, 106 Cal. 514, 39 Pac. 922; Frye v. State Bank, 11 111. 367; Erinkmeyer v. Browneller, 55 Ind. 487; Gray v. McClellan, 214 Mass. 92, 100 N. E. 1093; Finlay-son v. Crooks, 47 Minn. 74, 49 N. W. 398, 645; Heintze v. Bentley, 34 N. J. Eq. 562; Germania Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Fraenkel Realty Co., 82 N. J. Eq. 49, 88 Atl. 305; Scheurer v. Brown, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 567, 73 N. Y. Supp. 877; Merchants' State Bank of Fargo v. Tufts. 14 N. D. 238, 116 Am. St.

Rep. 682, 103 N. W. 760; Spadar v. Lawler, 17 Ohio St. 371, 49 Am Dec. 461; Seaman v. Fleming, 7 Rich. Eq. (N. J.) 283; Chester Nat. Bank v. Gunhouse, 17 S. C. 489. But see, contra, to the effect that the mortgagee may, even against an incumbrance of which he has notice, make advances and assert a lien therefor. Witczin-ski v. Everman, 51 Miss. 841; Wilson v. Russell, 13 Md. 495; Rowan v. Manufacturing Co., 29 Conn. 282. Gordon v. Graham, 7 Vin. Abr. 52, pi. 3, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 598, is as reported, to the same effect, but is overruled In this regard by Hopkinson v. Rolt, 9 H L. Cas. 514.

86. Ante, Sec. 606, notes 69, 70.

In case the mortgagee is bound to make the advances, he might, it seems, be protected in making them, without reference to whether he has notice of intervening incumbrances in favor of others, on the theory that he has no right, even if he has such notice, to refuse to make the advances. The cases are generally to this effect.87 In England, however, a different view is taken, to the effect that if the mortgagor incumbers the property in favor of another, or conveys it to another, he thereby relieves the mortgagee from his obligation to make advances, and consequently, the fact that the mortgagee has agreed to make advances becomes immaterial, and the same rule applies as where there was no such agreement in the first place.88

The courts are not in accord upon the question whether the mortgagee is to be regarded as charged with notice of an intervening conveyance or incumbrance at the time that he makes the advances, by the fact that it is apparent of record, some decisions being to the effect that he is not so charged,89 and others regarding him as bound to consult the records before making any advance.90

87. Boswell v. Goodwin, 31 Conn. 74, 81 Am. Dec. 169; Brink-meyer v. Browneller, 55 Ind. 487; Gerrity v. Wareham Sav. Bank, 202 Mass. 214, 88 N. E. 1084; Ladue v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 13 Mich. 380, 87 Am. Dec. 759; Heintze v. Bentley, 34 N. J. Eq. 5fi2; Hyman v. Hauff, 138 N. Y 48, 33 N. E. 738; Uind Title & Trust Co. v. Shoemaker, 257 Pa. 213, 101 Atl. 335; Blackmar v. Sharp, 23 R. I. 412. 50 Atl. 852; Alexandria Sav. Inst. v. Thomas, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 483; Ripley v. Harris, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 199, Fed. Cas. No. 11,853. Compare Norwood v. Norwood, 36 S. C. 331, 31 Am. St. Rep. 875, 15 S. E. 559.

88. West v. Williams (1899) 1 Ch. 488. Allen Co. v. Emerton.

108 Me. 221, 79 Atl. 905, is perhaps to this effect.

89. The Seattle, 170 Fed. 284, 95 C. C. A. 480; Tapia v. Demar-tini, 77 Cal. 383, 11 Am. St. Rep. 288, 19 Pac. 641; Frye v. Bank of Illinois, 11 111. 367; Schmidt v. Zahrndt, 148 Ind. 447; Nelson's Heirs v. Boyce, 7 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 401; Ward v. Cooke, 17 N. J Eq. 93;Ackerman v. Huniscker, 85 N. Y. 43, 39 Am. Rep. 621; Union Nat. Bank of Oshkosh v. Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co., 7 N. D. 201, 73 N. W. 527; Daniels v. Colvin, 16 Vt. 300, 42 Am. Dec. 512; Hall v. Williamson Grocery Co., 69 W. Va. 671, 72 S. E. 780; Simms v. Ramsey, 79 W. Va. 267, 90 S. E. 842.