Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Nature-Of-Mortgagor-s-Estate-Same-nature-of-Mortgagor-s-Estate.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:05:17+00:00

Document:
116. The mortgagor is owner of the mortgaged premises, as to all persons except the mortgagee.
As stated in the black-letter text, the mortgagor is owner of the estate, as to all persons except the mortgagee.108 The mortgagor or his assignees do not hold adversely to the mortgagee,109 and are estopped to deny the validity of the mortgage.110 The mortgagor may disseise the mortgagee by repudiating the mortgage, and hold adversely from that time.111 A disseisin of the mortgagor is a disseisin of the mortgagee also.112 All improvements made by the mortgagor inure to the benefit of the mortgagee.113 The mortgagor must pay taxes on the mortgaged land,114 and he will be enjoined from committing any waste which would impair the mortgage security, such as cutting timber or removing buildings.115 Such an injunction may be obtained by a surety of the mortgagor.116 The same remedy is provided against the grantees of the mortgagor.117 A mortgagor in possession is entitled to reasonable esto108 Turner Coal Co. v. Glover, 101 Ala. 289, 13 South. 478. The mortgagor may sue for injuries to the mortgaged premises, whether In possession or not. Frankenthal v. Mayer, 54 111. App. 160; Heitkamp v. Granite Co., 59 Mo. App. 244; At wood v. Pulp Co., 85 Me. 379, 27 Atl. 259.
109 Wright v. Sperry, 25 Wis. 617; Seeley v. Manning, 37 Wis. 574; Doyle v. Mellen, 15 R. I. 523, 8 Atl. 709.
110 Skelton v. Scott, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 375; Fisher v. Mllmine, 94 111. 32S; Kerngood v. Davis, 21 S. C. 183.
111 Benton Co. v. Czarlinsky, 101 Mo. 275, 14 S. W. 114; Jamison v. Perry, 38 Iowa, 14. Contra, Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 374.
112 Poignand v. Smith, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 272.
113 Ivy v. Yancey, 129 Mo. 501, 31 S. W. 937. And see Malone v. Roy, 107 Cal. 518, 40 Pac. 1040.
114 Mann v. Mann, 49 111. App. 472; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Newell, 78 Hun, 293, 28 N. Y. Supp. 913. Cf. Wood v. Armour, 88 Wis. 488, 60 N. W. 791; Raymond v. Palmer, 47 La. Ann. 786, 17 South. 312.
115 Fairbank v. Cudworth, 33 Wis. 358; Scott v. Webster, 50 Wis. 53, 6 N. W. 363; Dorr v. Dudderar, 88 111. 107; Verner v. Betz, 46 N. J. Eq. 256, 19 Atl. 206; Adams v. Corriston, 7 Minn. 456 (Gil. 365). And see, as to the abandonment of an easement, Duval v. Becker, 81 Md. 537, 32 Atl. 308.
116 Johnson v. White, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 194.
117 Coker v. Whitlock, 54 Ala. I80.
(a) By statute, as in many states.
118 Hapgood v. Blood, 11 Gray (Mass.) 400; Wright v. Lake, 30 Vt 206; Jud-klns v. Woodman, 81 Me. 351, 17 Atl. 298.
119 Woodward v. Pickett, 8 Gray (Mass.) 617; Allen v. Elderkin, 62 Wis. 627, 22 N. W. 842; Tobey v. Reed, 9 Conn. 216. But see Coor v. Smith, 101 N. C. 261, 7 S. E. 669.
120 Downard v. Groff, 40 Iowa, 597; Glllett v. Balcom, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 371; Gilman v. Wills, 66 Me. 273.
121 Jones v. Thomas, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 428.
122 Huckins v. Straw, 34 Me. 166; Stinson y. Ross, 51 Me. 556; Ellison v. Daniels, 11 N. H. 274; Doe v. Mcloskey, 1 Ala, 708; Bartlett v. Borden, 13 Bush (Ky.) 45.
123 Smith v. Shuler, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 240; Youngman v. Railroad Co., 65 Pa. St. 278; Barrett v. Hinckley, 124 111. 32, 14 N. E. 863; Mershon v. Castree (N. J. Sup.) 31 Atl. 602. And see Springer v. Lehman, 50 111. App. 139; Brundage v. Association, 11 Wash. St 277, 39 Pac. 666. Cf., however, Armour Pack. Co. v. Wolff, 59 Mo. App. 665.
124 See 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, §§ 1882, 1883. And see Michigan Trust Co. v. Lansing Lumber Co., 103 Mich. 392, 61 N. W. 668; Cullen v. Trust Co., 60 Minn. 6, 61 N. W. 818.
118. The mortgagor and the mortgagee each have an insurable interest in the mortgaged premises.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.