Not infrequently the state statute expressly provides that a suit to foreclose a mortgage shall be brought within a time named. In the absence of such a provision, equity has occasionally applied, by way of analogy, the state statute fixing the limitation period for an action to recover land.55 More usually, however, the courts have refused to apply such a statute in the case of a foreclosure proceeding, for the reason that the possession of the mortgagor, or of the mortgagor's transferee,56 is not adverse to the mortgage creditor,57 except when the former in some way repudiates the mortgage relation.58 There might, moreover, be some question whether an analogy does exist between an action to recover land and a proceeding to foreclose by sale of the land, particularly when the mortgagee has not the legal title.59

50. Provident Sav. Life Ass'n Society v. Georgia Industrial Co., 124 Ga. 399, 52 S. E. 289. Compare Moore v. Crandall, 146 Iowa, 25, 140 Am. St. Rep. 276, 124 N. W. 812.

51. Lewis v. Starke, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 120; Forbes v. McCoy, 15 Neb. 632, 20 N. W. 17; Newark Nat. State Bank v. Davis, 24 Ohio St. 190; Learned v. Bishop, 42 Bishop, 42 Wis. 470; Hampton v. Phipps, 108 U. S. 260, 27 L. Ed. 719.

52. Lathrop v. Atwood, 21 Conn. 117; Goff v. Hedgecock. 144 Ind. 415, 43 N. E. 644.

53. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 1 McCrary, 388, & Fed. 303; Thornton v. Pigg, 24

Mo. 249; Wahl v. Phillips. 12 Iowa, 81. See ante, 640(g).

54. Blumberg v. Birch, 99 Cal. 416, 37 Am. St. Rep. 67, 34 Pac. 102; Webber v. Blanc, 39 Fla. 224, 22 So. 655; Morgan v. Sherwood, 53 III. 171; Marston v. Marston, 45 Me. 412; Leland v. Loring, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 122; National City Bank of Grand Rapids v. Torrent, 130 Mich. 259, 89 N. W. 938; Sturk v. Mercer, 3 How. (Mass.) 377; Globe Ins. Co. v. Lansing, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 380, 15 Am. Dec 474; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Aitkin, 125 N. Y. 660, 26 N. E. 732; Doyle v. West, 60 Ohio St. 438, 54 N. E. 469; Paris v. Hulett, 26 Vt. 308.

Even though there is no statute of limitations applicable to the foreclosure of a mortgage, a suit for that purpose may be in effect barred by the application of the common law presumption of payment which arises after the lapse of twenty years from the maturity of an indebtedness, a presumption which has been frequently applied in the case of an indebtedness secured by mortgage.60 This presumption may, however, be rebutted by showing that, within this period, the mortgagor or his representative in interest has acknowledged the existence of the indebtedness by making a partial payment thereon or otherwise,61 and according to some cases, the presumption may be rebutted by evidence of other facts tending to show that the indebtedness has not been paid.62 In asserting and applying the presumption in connection with an indebtedness secured by mortgage, the fact that the mortgagee or his transferee was in possession of the land during the twenty years is ordinarily referred to as an

55. Christopher v. Shockley, - Ala. -, 75 So. 158: Guthrie v. Field, 21 Ark. 379; Hall v. Denk-la. 28 Ark. 506; Haskell v. Bailey, 22 Conn. 569; Hough v. Bailey, 32 Conn. 288; Blue v. Everett, 56 N. J. Eq. 455, 39 Atl. 765; Wilkinson v. Flowers, 37 Miss. 378, 75 Am. Dec. 78; Baldwin v. Trimble, 85 Md. 396, 36 L. R. A. 489, 3' Atl. 176; Martin v. Bowker, 19 Vt. 526 (semble).

56. Elsberry v. Boykin, 65 Ala. 336; Whittington v. Flint, 43 Ark. 504, 51 Am. Rep. 572; Lynch v. Hancock, 14 S. C. 66.

57. Bailey v. Butler, 138 Ala. 153, 35 So. III; Duke v. State, 56 Ark. 485, 20 S. W. 600; Joy v. Adams, 26 Me. 330; Sweetser v. Lowell, 33 Me. 446; Cape Girardeau Co. v. Harbison, 58 Mo. 90; Tripe v. Marcy, 39 N. H. 439; Col-ton v. Depew, 60 N. J. Eq. 454, 83 Am. St. Rep. 650, 46 Atl. 728; Allen v. Everly, 24 Ohio St. 97; Pickens v. Love's Adm'r, 44 W. Va. 725, 29 S. E. 1018; Balch v. Arnold, 9 Wyo. 17, 59 Pac. 434.

58. Birne v. Main, 29 Ark. 591; Reed v. Kidder, 70 III. App. 498; Jamison v. Perry, 38 Iowa, 14; Holmes v. Turners Falls Lumber Co., 150 Mass. 535, 548. 6 L. R. A. 283, 23 N. E. 305; Green v. Mi-zelle, 54 Miss. 220; Gardner v. Terry, 99 Mo. 523, 7 L. R. A. 67, 12 S. W. 888; St. Louis v. Priest, 103. Mo. 652, 15 S. W. 988.

59. See Balch v. Arnold, 9 Wyo. 17, 59 Pac. 434.

60. Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 489, 6 L. Ed. 142; Loper v. Dickey (Ala.), 67 So. 255; Locke v. Caldwell, 91 III. 417; Courtney v. Staudenmayer, 56 Kan. 392, 54 Am. St. Rep. 592, 43 Pac. 758; Hunt v. Forman, 2 Dana (Ky.) 471; Chick v. Rollins, 44 Me. 104; Sweetser v. Lowell, 33 Me. 446; Howland v. Shurtleff, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 26, 35 Am. Dec. 384; Baent v. Kenni-cutt, 57 Mich. 268, 23 N. W. 808; Cape Girardeau Co. v. Harbison, 58 Mo. 90; Tripe v. Marcy, 39 N. H. 439; Magee v. Bradley, 54 N. J. Eq. 326, 35 Atl. 103; Stimis v Stimis, 54 N. J. Eq. 17, 33 Atl. 468; Jackson v. Wood, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 242, 7 Am. Dec. 315; Giles v Baremore, 5 Johns. (Ch. (N. Y.) 545; Barnard v. Underdonk, 98 N. Y. 158; Roberts v. Welch, 8 Ired. Eq. (N. Car.) 287; Ray v. Pearce. 84 N. C. 48:"; Green v. Fricker, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 171; Hart v. Bucher, 182 Pa. St. 604, 38 Atl. 472; Staples v. Staples, 20 R. I. 264. 38 Atl. 498; Simms v. Kearse, 42 S. C. 43, 20 S. E.

19; Turnbull v. Mann, 99 Va. 41, 37 S. E. 288; Pickens v. Love's Adm'r, 44 W. Va. 725, 29 S. E. 1018; Christophers v. Sparke, 2 Jac. & W. 223.

61. Cross v. Allen, 141 U. S. 528, 35 L. Ed. 843; Locke v. Caldwell, 91 III. 417; Courtney v. Staudenmayer, 56 Kan. 392, 54 Am. St. Rep. 592, 43 Pac. 758; Brown v. Hardcastle, 63 Md. 484; Kellogg v. Dickinson, 147 Mass. 432. 1 L. R. A. 346, 18 N. E. 223; Blair v. Carpenter, 75 Mich. 167, 42 N. W. 790; Frye v. Hubbell, 74 N. H. 358, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1197, 68 Atl. 325; Jackson v. Fierce, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 417; Kendall v. Tracy, 64 Vt. 522, 24 Atl. 1118.

62 Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 519, 19 L. Ed. 1002; Phil-brook v. Clark, 77 Me. 176: Knight V. McKinney, 84 Me. 107. 24 Atl. 744; Howland v. Shurtleff, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 26. 35 Am. Dec. 384; Barker v. Jones, 62 N. H. 497; Wanmaker v. VanBuskirk, 1 N. J. Eq. 685, 23 Am. Dec. 748; Stimis v. Stimis, 60 N. J. Eq. 313, important consideration, and that the mortgage creditor was in possession during a part of that time would apparently prevent the application of the presumption of payment, or rather, would rebut such presumption.63 As before stated,64 by the weight of authority, the expiration of the period allowed for bringing suit on the personal obligation secured by the mortgage does not bar suit to foreclose, while in some states, however, a different view is taken, and the running of the statute against the personal obligation defeats the right of foreclosure.