Fore closure is the proceeding by which a mortgagor or other owner of an interest in the land is, upon his failure to comply with the stipulations of the mortgage or of the instrument secured thereby, deprived of his right to discharge the land from the lien of the mortgage. Though we speak of the foreclosure of a mortgage, what is really foreclosed is the right to redeem from the mortgage, that is, the right, by a belated performance of the obligation secured, to extinguish the lien of the mortgage.

The right to foreclose accrues upon a non compliance with a stipulation, the performance of which

1414; Aldrich v. Cooper, 2 White & Tudor, Lead. Cas. Eq. 228, notes; Abbott v. Powell, 6 Sawy. 91, Fed. Cas. No. 13; Hannah v. Carrington, 18 Ark. 85; Andreas v. Hubbard, 50 Conn. 351; Brooks v. Matledge, 100 Ga. 367, 28 S. E. 119; Newby v. Fox, 90 Kan. 317, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 302, 33 Pac. 890; Griffin v. Gingell, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2031, 79 S. W. 284; Dickson v. Sledge (Miss.), 38 So. 673; Cheesebrough v. Millard, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 409, 7 Am. Dec. 494; Merchants State Bank v. Tufts, 14 N. D. 238, 116 Am. St. Rep. 682. 103 N. W. 760; Wilson v. Magill,

105 S. C. 312, 89 S. E. 547; Ball v. Setzer, 33 W. Va. 444, 10 S. E. 798; White v. Polleys, 20 Wis 505.

32. Boone v. Clark, 129 III. 466, 5 L. R. A. 276, 21 N. E. 850; Detroit Sav. Bank v. Truesdail, 38 Mich. 430; Farwell v. Bigelow, 112 Mich. 285, 70 N. W. 285; Stern-berger v. Sussman, 69 N. J. Eq. 197, 60 Atl. 195, 85 N. J. Eq. 593. 98 Atl. 1087; French & Co. v. Halten-hoff, 73 Ore. 244, 144 Pac. 480; Mc-Ginnis Appeal, 16 Pa. St. 445; Hudkius v. Ward, 30 W. Va. 204, 8 Am. St. Rep. 22, 3 S. E. 600.

33. Ante Sec. 644, note 3.

2676 Real Property. 64S the mortgage is intended to secure, and not before.34

Usually, the mortgage instrument or the note or bond accompanying it, provides that a default in the payment of an installment of principal or interest shall cause the whole principal immediately to become due, at the mortgage's option, thus authorizing a foreclosure for the whole amount upon such a default.35 The institution of a suit to foreclose for the whole amount is regarded as a sufficient exercise by the mortgagee of such an option, without any previous declaration by the mortgage creditor of his desire that the total principal be considered due,36 unless there is an express requirement of such a declaration.37 On the other hand the regarded as due under such a stipulation, unless the debtor was first given another opportunity to effect the insurance.50

34. Pendleton v. Rowe, 34 Cal. 149; Cumberland Island Co. v. Bunkley, 108 Ga. 756, 33 S. E. 183; Dorn v. Gender, 171 III. 362, 49 N. E. 492; Gassert v. Black, 18 Mont. 35, 44 Pac. 401; Ohio Cent R. Co. v. New York Cent. Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83, 33 L. Ed. 561.

35. Phillips v. Taylor, 96 Ala. 426, 11 So. 323; Clark v. Paddock, 24 Idaho, 142, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 475, 132 Pac. 795; Heath v. Hall, 60 III. 344; Brown v. McKay, 151 III. 315. 37 N. E. 1037; Buchanan v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 96 Ind. 510; Buffalo Center Land & Investment Co. v. Swigart, 176 Iowa, 422, 156 N. W. 701; Adams v. Essex, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 149. 4 Am. Dec. 623; Schooley v. Romain, 31 Md. 574, 100 Am. Dec. 87; Noell v Gaines, 68 Mo. 649; Fletcher v. Daugherty, 13 Neb. 224, 13 N. W. 207; Baldwin v. VanVorst, 10 N. J. Eq. 577; Noyes v. Anderson, 124 N. Y. 175, 21 Am. St. Rep. 657, 26 N. E. 316; Parker v. Banks. 79 N. C. 480; Bushfield v. Meyer. 10 Ohio St. 334; Flesher v. Hubbard, 37 Okla. 587, 132 Pac. 1080; Atkinson v. Walton, 162 Pa. St. 219, 29 Atl. 898. And the statute in a number of states expressly authorizes foreclosure for the whole on nonpayment of an installment. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law. Sec. 1929.

36. Prince v. Mahin, - Fla.

- 74 So. 696; Gloding v. Implement & Hardware Co., 20 Idaho, 348, 118 Pac. 666; Brown v. McKay, 151 III. 315, 37 N. E. 1037: Buchanan v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 96 Ind. 910; Ogilvie v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 171 Ky. 134, 188 S. W. 309; Dunton v. Sharpe. 70 Miss. 850, 12 So. 800;Lowen stein v. Phelan, 17 Neb. 429, 22 N. W. 561; Doolittle v. Nurnberg. 27 N. D. 521, 147 N. W. 400; Atkin son v. Walton, 162 Pa. St. 219, 29 Atl. 898; Lee v. Security Bank & Trust Co., 124 Tenn. 582, 139 S. W. 690; Musselman v. Knottingham. 77 Wash. 435, 137 Pac. 1012. Compare English v. Carney, 25 Mich. 178; Schoonmaker v. Taylor, 14 Wis. 313.

37. Hewitt v. Dean, 91 Cal. 5, 27 Pac. 423; Buchanan v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 96 Ind. 510; creditor may, in such case, unless prohibited by some statutory provision or otherwise, foreclose for such portion only of the debt, principal or interest, as may be actually in default.38

The courts will usually enforce such a provision for "acceleration" according to its terms, without reference to any suggested hardship upon the debtor,39 provided the creditor is entirely free from fault and has in no way misled the debtor.40 And it has even been held that the debtor's inability to find the creditor in order to make payment is no reason for not enforcing such a provision.41 A case is, however, to be found to the effect that a foreclosure for the principal should not he allowed because of a failure to pay interest, if such failure resulted from a reasonable doubt as to whether any interest was due.42

The acceptance by the mortgage creditor of an instalment of interest after the proper time for payment will usually preclude him from thereafter declaring the whole debt due on account of non payment of such instalment.43 But it does not affect his right to

Chicago & V. R. R. Co. v. Fosdeck, 106 U. S. 47, 27 L. Ed. 47.

38. Philips v. Taylor. 96 Ala. 426, 11 So. 323; Hatcher v. Chan-cey, 71 Ga. 689; Morgernstern v. Klees, 30 III. 422; McCarthy v. Benedict. 89 Neb. 293. 131 N W. 598; Anderson v. Pilgram, 30 S. C. 499, 4 L. R. A. 205 14 Am. St. Rep. 917, 9 S. E. 587; Dupee v. Salt Lake Valley Loan & Trust Co.. 20 Utah, 103, 77 Am. St. Rep. 902, 57 Pac: 845.

39. Bennett v. Stevenson, 53 N. Y. 528; Hunt v. Keech, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 204; Osborne v. Ketch-am, 76 Hun. (N. Y.) 325. 27 N. Y. Supp. 694; Serrell v. Rothstein, 49 N J. Eq. 385, 21 Atl. 369; Warwick Iron Co. v. Morton, 148 Pa.

St. 72, 23 Atl. 1065.

40. See Noyes v. Clark. 7 Paige (N. Y.) 179, 32 Am. Pec. 620; Sehieck v. Donohue, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 330, 87 N. V. Supp. 206; Wilson v. Bird. 28 N. J. Eq. 352,

41. Atkinson v. Walton, 162 Pa. St. 219. 29 Atl. 898.

42. Wilcox v. Allen, 36 Mich. 160.

43. Mason v. Luce, 116 Cal 232, 48 Pac. 72; Smalley v. Ranken. 85 Iowa. 612, 52 N. \V. 507; Sire v Wightman. 25 N. J. Eq. 102: Bizzell v. Roberts. 156 N. C. 272, 72 S. E. 378; Alabama & G. Mfg. Co. v. Robinson, 5G Fed. 690, 6 G. C. A. 79. But the contrary was held when there was no option or right of election given to the mortso declare on account of a default in the payment of a subsequent instalment.44 Nor, after he has declared the whole debt due for default in the payment of interest, will his right to foreclose be excluded by his subsequent acceptance of part of the debt.45

There may be, by express stipulation, a right to foreclose for the principal upon the mortgagor's failure to pay taxes on the land,46 or upon any other default by the mortgagor, as in the payment of insurance, which is calculated to affect the security.47 A demand of performance after such a default is not necessary before beginning suit to foreclose.48 But a performance, even after default, will usually prevent the subsequent institution of a suit to foreclose.49 And it has been held that when there was a reasonable effort to comply with a covenant to insure, and the debtor supposed that he had so complied, the principal should not be gage creditor. Moore v. Sargent, 112 Ind. 484, 14 N. E. 466. That tender of the amount overdue will prevent a declaration that the whole debt is due, sea Wolz v. Parker, 134 Mo. 458, 35 S. W. 1149.

44. Parker v. Olliver, 106 Ala. 549, 18 So. 40; Campbell v. West, 86 Cal. 197, 24 Pac. 1000; Moore v Sargent, 112 Ind. 484, 14 N. E. 466.

45. LaPlant v. Beechley, Iowa, - , 165 N. W. 1019.

46. Pope v. Durant, 26 Iowa, 233; Stanclift v. Norton, 11 Kan. 218; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Puckett, 97 Kan. 428, 155 Pac. 930; Condon v. Maynard, 71 Md. 601, 18 Atl. 957; Pearman v. Massachusetts Hospital Life Ins. Co., 206 Mass. 377, 92 N. E. 497; O'Connor v. Shipman, 48 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 126; Farmers' Security Bank of Park River, North Dakota v. Martin, 29 N. D. 269, L. R. A.

1915D, 432, 150 N. W. 572; Johnson v. Irwin, 16 Wash. 652, 48 Pac. 345.

47. Johnson v. Northern Minnesota Land & Investment Co., 168 Iowa, 340, 150 N. W. 596; Porter v. Schrall, 93 Kan. 297, 144 Pac. 216; First Nat. Bank of Strong-hurst, Illinois v. Kirby (Mo.), 175 S. W. 926; Churchill v. Meade, 88 Ore. 120, 171 Pac. 565.

48. Clemens v. Luce, 101 Cal. 432, 35 Pac. 1032; Ferris v. Spoon-er, 102 N. Y. 10, 5 N. E. 773.

49. Smalley v. Ranken, 85 Iowa, 612, 52 N. W. 507; Noyes v. Anderson, 124 N. Y. 175, 21 Am. St. Rep. 657, 26 N. E. 316; Ver Planck v. Godfrey, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 16, 58 N. Y. Supp. 784. A subsequent performance cannot affect the right to prosecute a proceeding for sale already instituted. Parker v. Olliver, 106 Ala. 549, 18 So. 40.

The right to enforce the security of an indemnity mortgage, by sale or otherwise, does not ordinarily arise until the maturity of the obligation as to which the mortgagee is surety or guarantor, and the satisfaction thereof by him.51 But if the mortgage is not one of indemnity against damage only, but also provides for the actual payment of certain sums by the mortgagor, a right of foreclosure arises upon a failure on the part of the mortgagor to make such payment.52

Recovery in an action on the debt does not, apart from statute, affect the right subsequently to foreclose.53 Nor does the completion of the foreclosure by sale prevent a subsequent suit to recover on the personal liability, unless the result of the foreclosure is to satisfy the debt.54