The mortgagor, or any other person having an interest in the land, and who is in privity with and claims under the mortgagor, may redeem from the mortgage, provided he would be prejudiced by the enforcement thereof.4 Accordingly the right may be exercised by a grantee of the mortgaged premises, or of a part thereof,5 and even mission Co., 58 Neb. 670, 79 N. W. 613; Ingalls v. Morgan, 10 N. Y. 178; Rogis v. Barnatowich, 36 R I. 227, 89 Atl. 838; First Nat. Bank of Huntington v. Simms, 49 W. Va. 442, 38 S. E. 525; Deus-ter v. McCannis, 14 Wis. 307; Schaad v. Robinson, 50 Wasb. 283, 97 Pac. 104.

2. Woodward v. Brown, 119 Cal. 283, 63 Am. St. Rep. 108, 51 Pac. 2, 542; Ellis v. Fairbanks, 38Fed. 257, 21 So. 107; Boone v. Clarke, 129 111. 466, 5 L. R. A. 276, 21 N. E. 850; Annan v. Hays, 85 Md. 505, 37 Atl. 20; George v. Wood, 9 Allen (Mass.) 80, 85 Am. Dec. 741; Norton v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 74 Minn. 484, 77 N. W. 298, 539; Balen v. Lewis, 130 Mich. 567, 97 Am. St. Rep 499, 90 N. W. 416; Howard Ins. Co. v. Halsey, 8 N. Y. 271, 59 Am. Dec. 478; Patty v. Pease, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 277, 35 Am. Dec. 683; Hart v. Anderson, 198 Pa. St. 558, 48

Atl. 636; Lynchburg Perpet. Bld'g Assn. v. Fellers, 96 Va. 337, 70 Am. St. Rep. 851, 31 S. E. 505.

3. Louis v. Hinman, 56 Conn. 55, 13 Atl. 143; Annan v. Hays, 85 Md. 505, 37 Atl. 20; Johnson v. Bell, 58 N. H. 395; Ward v. Hague, 25 N. J. Eq. 397; Chese-brough v. Millard, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 414, 7 Am. Dec. 494; Sherman v. Foster, 158 N. Y. 587, 52 N. E. 504; Searles v. McGee, 1 N. D. 365, 26 Am. St. Rep. 633, 48 N. W. 231.

4. Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co., 64 Ala. 330; Frisbee v. Fris-bee, 86 Me. 444, 29 Atl. 1115; Piatt v. Squire, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 494; Powers v. Golden Lumber Co., 43 Mich. 468, 5 N. W. 656; Grant v. Duane, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 611; Sellwood v. Gray, 11 Ore. 534, 5 Pac. 196.

5. Howser v. Cruikshank, 122 Ala. 256, 82 Am. St. Rep. 76, 25 So. 206; Purcell v. Gann, 113 one who has merely a contract for the sale to him of the land has the right, provided the contract is susceptible of specific enforcement.6 One who acquires the mortgagor's interest in the land by purchase at execution or judicial sale stands in the same position in this regard as one to whom the land is voluntarily conveyed by the owner.7 The right also exists in favor of an heir or devisee of an owner of the land.8

The owner of an estate of limited duration, such as an estate for life9 or for years,10 has the same right to redeem as has a tenant in fee simple. And the right exists to its full extent in favor of the owner of an undivided interest in the mortgaged property11 or of

Ark. 332, 168 S. W. 1102; Loomis v. Knox, 60 Conn. 343, 22 Atl. 771; Dunlap v. Wilson, 32 111. 517; Douglas v. Bishop, 27 Iowa, 2] 4; Skinner v. Miller, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 84; Wood v. Goodwin, 49 Me. 260, 77 Am. Dec. 259; Houston v. National Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n, 80 Miss. 31, 92 Am. St. Rep. 565, 31 So. 540; Childs v. Childs, 10 Ohio St. 339, 75 Am. Dec. 512.

6. Lowry v. Tew, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 407; Emerson v. Atkinson, 159 Mass. 356, 34 N. E. 516; see Noyes v. Hall, 97 U. S. 34, 24 L. Ed. 909. Aliter when the court did not have full equity powers. McDougald v. Capron, 7 Gray

(Mass.) 278; Porter v. Read, 19 Me. 363.

7. Allen v. Swoope, 64 Ark. 576, 44 S. W. 78; Dalton v. Brown, 130 Ark. 200, 197 S. W. 32; Jackson v. Weaver, 138 Ind. 539, 38 N. E. 166; Tukey v. Reinholdt, - (Iowa) -, 130 N. W. 727; Millett v Blake, 81 Me. 531, 10 Am. St own interest in the security. He is regarded, in this respect, as in the position of a junior lienor.20

Rep. 275, 18 Atl. 293; Hay ward v. Cain, 110 Mass. 273; Willis v. Smith, 66 Tex. 31, 17 S. W. 247.

8. Chew v. Hyman, 10 Biss. 240, 7 Fed. 7; Zaegel v. Kuster, 51 Wis. 31, 7 N. W. 781; Hunter v. Dennis, 112 111. 568; Lewis v. Nangle, 2 Ves. Sr. 431.

9. Lamson v. Drake, 105 Mass. 564; Wicks v. Scrivens, 1 Johns. & H. 215; Donovan v. Smith, - (N. J. Ch.) -, 88 Atl. 167. And see cases cited post, this section, note 13.

10. Loud v. Lane, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 517; Hamilton v. Dobbs, 19 N. J. Eq. 227; Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 44; Wunderle v. Ellis, 212 Pa. St. 618, 4 Ann. Cas. 806, 62 Atl. 106; Campbell v. McElevey, 2 Disney (Ohio) 574.

11. McQueen v. Whetstone, 127 Aia. 417, 30 So. 548; Titsworth v. Stout, 49 111. 78, 95 Am. Dec. 577; Emerson v. Atkinson, 159 Mass. 356, 34 N. E. 516; Geisbaker v. Pancoast, 57 N. J. Eq. 60, 40 Atl. 200; Hubbard v. Ascutney Mill an ascertained part thereof.12

The right may be exercised by one who has an estate of dower in the mortgaged land, provided her estate is subject to the mortgage, by reason of the fact, either that she joined therein,13 or that it was created before the marital rights accrued.14 If her estate is not subject to the mortgage, she has no right to redeem therefrom since she cannot be affected by its enforcement.15 Even though the right of dower is inchoate merely, by reason of the fact that the husband is still living, the wife has, it has been generally decided, a right to redeem to the same extent as if it were consummate.16

Dam Co., 20 Vt. 402, 50 Am. Dec. 41.

12. Howser v. Cruikshank, 122 Ala. 256, 82 Am. St. Rep. 76, 25 So. 206; Douglas v. Bishop, 27 Iowa, 214; Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 44; Wood v. Goodwin. 49 Me. 260, 77 Am. Dec. 259; Ferry v Miller, 164 Mich. 429, 129 N. W. 721. The owner of timber on the land has the right. Cilley v. Herrick, 117 Me. 264, 103 Atl. 777.

13. McGough v. Sweetser, 97 Ala. 361, 19 L. R. A. 470, 12 So. 162; Hays v. Cretin, 102 Md. 695, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1039, 62 Atl. 1028; Smith v. Hall, 67 N. H. 200, 30 Atl. 409; Gibson v. Cre-hore, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 146; Mc-Arthur v. Franklin, 16 Ohio St. 193; Atwood v. Arnold, 23 R. I. 609, 51 Atl. 216.

14. Mackenna v. Fidelity Trust Co. of Buffalo, 184 N. Y. 411, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1068. 112 Am. St. Rep. 620, 6 Ann. Cas. 471, 77 N. E. 721; Atwood v. Arnold, 23 R. I. 609. 51 Atl. 216; Opdyke v Bartles, 11 N. J. Eq. 133. So the widow is entitled to redeem from a mortgage made by the husband to secure purchase money, though she did not join therein, this being superior to her dower right. May v. Fletcher, 40 Ind. 575; Barr v. Vanalstine, 120 Ind. 590, 22 N. E. 965; Mills v. Van Voorhies, 20 N. Y. 412. But see Burson v. Dow, 65 111. 146.