Barker v. Bradley, 42 N. Y. 316, 1 Am. Rep. 521; Coster v. Mayor of Albany, 43 N. Y. 399; Secor v. Lord, 3 Keyes, 525; Hutchings v. Miner, 46 N. Y. 456, 460, 7 Am. Rep. 369; Claflin v. Ostrom, 54 N. Y. 581; Barlow v. Myers, 64 N. Y. 41, 21 Am. Rep. 582; Arnold v. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 117; Litchfield v. Flint, 104 N. Y. 543, 11 N. E. 58; Hallenbeck v. Kindred, 109 N. Y. 620, 15 N. E. 887; Warren v. Wilder, 114 N. Y. 209, 21 N. E. 159; Hannigan v. Allen, 127 N. Y. 639, 27 N. E. 402; Clark v. Howard, 150 N. Y. 232, 44 N. E. 695; Bradley v. McDonald, 157 N. Y. App. D. 572, 142 N. Y. S. 702, 218 N. Y. 351, 113 N. E. 340; Seaman v. Hasbrouck, 35 Barb. 151; Adams v. Wadhams, 40 Barb. 225; Brown v. Curran, 14 Hun, 260; Cock v. Moore, 18 Hun, 31; Kingsbury v. Earle, 27 Hun, 141; Schmid v. New York, etc., R. Co., 32 Hun, 335, affd. 98 N. Y. 634; Edick v. Green, 38 Hun, 202; Pulver v. Skinner, 42 Hun, 322; Reynolds v. Lawton, 62 Hun, 596, 17 N. Y. S. 432; Bogardus v. Young, 64 Hun, 398, 19 N. Y. S. 885; Cook v. Berrott, 66 Hun, 633, 21 N. Y. S. 358; Beemer v. Packard, 92 Hun, 546, 38 N. Y. S. 1045; Anguish v. Blair, 160 N. Y. App. D. 52, 145 N. Y. S. 392. But see Ætna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 82, 7 Am. Rep. 314; Merrill v. Green, 55 N. Y. 270; Wheat v. Rice, 97 N. Y. 296; Serviss v. McDonnell, 107 N. Y. 260, 14 N. E. 314; Corner v. Mackey, 147 N. Y. 574, 582, 42 N. E. 29; Rigney v. New York Central, etc., R. Co., 217 N. Y. 31, 111 N. E. 226; Fairchild v. Feltman, 32 Hun, 398; Metropolitan Trust Co. v. New York, etc., Ry. Co., 45 Hun, 84; Clark v. Howard, 74 Hun, 228, 26 N. Y. S. 620; Feist v. Schiffer, 79 Hun, 275, 29 N. Y. S. 423; Mollison v. Gubelman, 170 N. Y. S. 985. NORTH CAROLINA. Voorhees v. Porter, 134 N. C. 591, 603, 47 S. E. 31, 65 L. R. A. 736; Orinoco Supply Co. v. Shaw Bros. Lumber Co., 160 N. C. 428, 431, 76 S. E. 273, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 707; Withers v. Poe, 167 N. C. 374, 83 S. E. 614; Crumpler v. Hines, 174 N. C. 283, 93 S. E. 780. Earlier decisions are expressly or impliedly overruled, e. g., Morehead v. Wriston, 73 N. C. 398; Peacock v. Williams, 98 N. C. 324, 4 S. E. 550; Woodcock v. Bostic, 118 N. C. 822, 24 S. E. 362. OHIO. Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 3 Ohio St. 544, 549; Bagaley v. Waters, 7 Ohio St. 359; Dodge v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 30 Ohio St. 1; Emmitt v. Brophy, 42 Ohio St. 82. OKLAHOMA. Eastman Land Co. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 30 Okla. 555, 120 Pac. 276; Staver Carriage Co. v. Jones, 32 Okla. 713, 123 Pac. 148. OREGON. Baker v. Eglin, 11 Oreg. 333, 8 Pac. 280; Hughes v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 11 Oreg. 437, 5 Pac. 206; Schneider v. White, 12 Oreg. 503, 8 Pac. 652; Strong v. Kamm, 13 Oreg. 172, 9 Pac. 331; Feldman v. McGuire, 34 Oreg. 309, 310, 55 Pac. 872; Oregon Mill & Grain Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 66 Or. 21, 133 Pac. 69; Baker City Mercantile Co. v. Idaho &c. Pipe Co., 67 Oreg. 372, 136 Pac. 23; Davidson v. Madden (Oreg.), 173 Pac. 320. But see contra Washburn v. Interstate Invest. Co., 26 Oreg. 436, 36 Pac. 533, 38 Pac. 620. PENNSYLVANIA (with some limitation). See supra, §§ 348, 381. See allowing the creditor a right, Strohecker v. Grant, 16 S. & R. 237, 241; Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts, 104, 26 Am. Dec. 107; Commercial Bank v. Wood, 7 W. & S. 89; Beers v. Robinson, 9 Barr, 229; Bellas v. Fagely, 19 Pa. 273; Townsend v. Long, 77 Pa. 143, 18 Am. Rep. 438; White v. Thielens, 106 Pa. 173; Delp v. Brewing Co., 123 Pa. 42, 15 Atl. 871; Howes v. Scott, 224 Pa. 7, 73 Atl. 186; In re Edmundson's Est., 259 Pa. 429, 103 Atl. 277. But see denying an action Blymire v. Boistle, 6 Watts, 182; Ramsdale v. cut, 28 Delaware, 28 Massachusetts, 29 Michigan, 30 are committed Horton, 3 Barr, 330; Campbell v. Lacock, 40 Pa. 448; Robertson v. Reed, 47 Pa. 115; Torrens v. Campbell, 74 Pa. 470; Kountz v. Holthouse, 85 Pa. 235, 237; Adams v. Kuehn, 119 Pa. 76, 13 Atl. 184; Freeman v. Pa. R. R. Co., 173 Pa. 274, 33 Atl. 1034. See also Brown v. German-American Title & Trust Co., 174 Pa. 443, 455, 34 Atl. 335; Sweeney v. Houston, 243 Pa. 542, 90 Atl. 347, L. R. A. 1915 A. 779. RHODE ISLAND. Merriman v. Social Mfg. Co., 12 R. I. 175; Wood v. Moriarty, 15 R. I. 518, 9 Atl. 427; Kehoe v. Patton, 23 R. I. 360, 50 Atl. 655. SOUTH CAROLINA. See McBride v. Floyd, 2 Bailey, 209; Brown v. O'Brien, 1 Rich. 268, 44 Am. Dec. 254; Redfearn v. Craig, 57 S. C. 534, 35 S. E. 1024. TENNESSEE. Moore v. Stovall, 2 Lea, 543; Lookout Mountain R. Co. v. Houston, 1 Pickle, 224; O'Connor v. O'Conner, 88 Tenn. 76, 82, 12 S. W. 28 Morgan v. Randolph-Clowes Co., 73 Conn. 396, 47 Atl. 658, 51 L. R. A. 653. See also Baxter v. Camp, 71 Conn. 245, 41 Atl. 803, 42 L. R. A. 514, 71 Am. St. Rep. 169. These cases overrule earlier decisions, e. g., Crockker v. Higgins, 7 Conn. 342; Steene v. Aylesworth, 18 Conn. 244, 252; Atwood v. Burpee, 77 Conn. 42, 58 Atl. 237. 28a Merchants' Union Trust Co. v. New Philadelphia Graphite Co. (Del. Ch.), 83 Atl. 520. 29 Mellen v. Whipple, 1 Gray, 317; Flint v. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68, 96 Am. Dec. 691; Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37, 9 Am. Rep. 1; Rogers v. Union Stone Co., 130 Mass. 581, 39 Am. Rep. 478; Aigen v. Boston & Maine R. R., 132 Mass. 423; Morrill v. Lane, 136 Mass. 93; Borden v. Boardman, 157 Mass. 410, 32 N. E. 469; 447, 7 L. R. A. 33. But see Campbell v. Findley, 3 Humph. 330. TEXAS. Spann v. Cochran, 63 Tex. 240; Bennett v. Rosenthal, 3 Willson Civ. Cas. 196; Bartley v. Conn, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 23 S. W. 382. UTAH. Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah, 360, 52 Pac. 597, 67 Am. St. Rep. 629. VERMONT. See Arlington v. Hinds, 1 D. Chip. 431, 12 Am. Dec. 704; Pangborn v. Saxton, 11 Vt. 79, semble; Corey v. Powers, 18 Vt. 587; Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Cole, 24 Vt. 33; Chapman v. Mears, 56 Vt. 389; Congregational Soc. v. Flagg, 72 Vt. 248, 47 Atl. 782. WASHINGTON. Don Yook v. Washington Mill Co., 16 Wash. 459, 47 Pac. 964; Union Machinery &c. Co. v. Darnell, 89 Wash. 226, 154 Pac. 183. WISCONSIN. Kimball v. Noyes, 17 Wis. 695; Putney v. Farnham, 27 Wis. 187, 9 Am. Rep. 459; McDowell v. Laev, 35 Wis. 171; Bassett v. Hughes, White v. Mt. Pleasant Mills, 172 Mass. 462, 52 N. E. 632. See also cases of mortgage, infra, n. 43. Cf. Berry v. Friedman, 192 Mass. 131, 137, 78 N. E. 305; Forbes v. Thorpe, 209 Mass. 570, 95 N. E. 955, 959. 30 Pipp v. Reynolds, 20 Mich. 88; Turner v. McCarty, 22 Mich. 265; Halsted v. Francis, 31 Mich. 113; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 37 Mich. 609; Hicks v. McGarry, 38 Mich. 667; Hunt v. Strew, 39 Mich. 368, 371; Booth v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 43 Mich. 299, 5 N. W. 381; Ayres v. Gallup, 44 Mich. 13, 5 N. W. 1072; Edwards v. Clements, 81 Mich. 513, 45 N. W. 1107; Minnock v. Eureka F. & M. Ins. Co., 90 Mich. 236, 51 N. W. 367; Bliss v. Plummer's Estate, 103 Mich. 181, 61 N. W. 263; Edwards v. Thoman, 187 Mich. 361, 153 N. W. 806. against the doctrine. The United States Supreme Court, 30 Maryland, 31 New Hampshire, 32 Pennsylvania, 33 and Wyoming, 34 43 Wis. 319; Hoile v. Bailey, 58 Wis. 434, 17 N. W. 322; Winninghoff v. Wittig, 64 Wis. 180, 24 N. W. 912; Johannes v. Phenix Ins. Co., 66 Wis. 50, 27 N. W. 414, 57 Am. Rep. 249; Jones v. Foster, 67 Wis. 296, 309, 30 N. W. 697; Ingram v. Osborn, 70 Wis. 184, 193, 35 N. W. 304; Nix v. Wiswell, 84 Wis. 334, 54 N. W. 620; Fulmer v. Wightman, 87 Wis. 573, 58 N. W. 1106; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hamlin, 100 Wis. 17, 23, 75 N. W. 421; Lenz v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 111 Wis. 198, 86 N. W. 607; Concrete Steel Co. v. Illinois Surety Co., 163 Wis. 41, 157 N. W. 543. 30a National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, 25 L. Ed. 75. See also Constable v. National S. S. Co., 154 U. S. 51, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903; Johns v. Wilson, 180 U. S. 440, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 445, 45 L. Ed. 613; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 226 U. S. 220, 33 Sup. Ct. 32, 57 L. Ed. 195, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1000; Nebraska Bank v. Nebraska Hydraulic Co., 14 Fed. 763; Jesup v. Illinois Central R. Co., 43 Fed. 483, 493; Hennessy v. Bond, 77 Fed. 403, 23 C. C. A. 203; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 94 Fed. 722; Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Dancel, 119 Fed. Rep. 692, 56 C. C. A. 300; Silver King Coalition Mines Co. v. Silver King Consol. Min. Co., 204 Fed. 166, 122, C. C. A. 402. Cf. Guardian Trust &c. Co. v. Fisher, 200 U. S. 57, 26 S. Ct. 186, 50 L. Ed. 367. 31 Hand v. Evans Marble Co., 88 Md. 226, 40 Atl. 899. But see Small v. Schæfer, 24 Md. 143; Seigman v. Hoffacker, 57 Md. 321. 32 Warren v. Batchelder, 15 N. H. 129. Conf. Warren v. Batchelder, 16 N. H. 580; Lang v. Henry, 54 N. H. 57; Hunt v. New Hampshire Fire Assoc., 68 N. H. 305, 308, 38 Atl. 145, 38 L. R. A. 514, 73 Am. St. Rep. 602. In the case last cited the court say, "The debt is in equity his debt." "If for technical reasons the law is powerless to enforce the duty, equity is subject to no such weakness." 33 Blymire v. Boistle, 6 Watts, 182, 31 Am. Dec. 458; Ramsdale v. Horton, 3 Barr, 330; Campbell v. Lacock, 40 Pa. 448; Robertson v. Reed, 47 Pa. 115; Torrens v. Campbell, 74 Pa. 470; Kountz v. Holthouse, 85 Pa. 235, 237; Adams v. Kuehn, 119 Pa. 76, 13 Atl. 184; Freeman v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 173 Pa. 274, 33 Atl. 1034. But see Strohecker v. Grant, 16 S. & R. 237, 241; Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts, 104; Commercial Bank v. Wood, 7 W. & S. 89; Vincent v. Watson, 18 Pa. 96; Bellas v. Fagely, 19 Pa. 273; Townsend v. Long, 77 Pa. 143, 18 Am. Rep. 438; White v. Thielens, 106 Pa. 173; Delp v. Brewing Co., 123 Pa. 42, 15 Atl. 871; Howes v. Scott, 224 Pa. 7, 73 Atl. 186; Sweeney v. Houston, 243 Pa. 542, 90 Atl. 347, L. R. A. 1915 A. 779. See also mortgage cases. The rule in Pennyslvania seems to be that in general the creditor cannot sue, but "among the exceptions are cases where the promise to pay the debt of a third person rests upon the fact that money or property is placed in the hands of the promisor for that particular purpose, also where one buys out the stock of a tradesman and undertakes to take the place, fill the contracts, and pay the debts of his vendor." Adams v. Kuehn, 119 Pa. 76, 86, 13 Atl. 184. The first exception thus stated is that of a trust, but in its application of the rule the Pennsylvania court has gone beyond trusts properly so called. 34 McCarteney v. Wyoming Nat. Bank, 1 Wyo. 382. at least, do not accept it completely and unequivocally. Several other jurisdictions in most cases, at least, hold the creditor's only right to be derivative and equitable, though in some of them code procedure has been substituted for a bill in equity in the enforcement of derivative rights.35 § 382. What amounts to an assumption of a mortgage. The most universal illustration of the right of a creditor to sue on a promise to his debtor to pay the debt arises where the grantee of premises subject to a mortgage assumes and agrees to pay the mortgage debt. In England one who buys property expressed to be subject to a mortgage becomes thereby bound as by contract to indemnify the mortgagor from liability though no promise in terms is made to do so; 36 and the same construction is adopted in Pennsylvania.37 In the United States generally, however, no promise or legal or equitable obligation 35 Sheppard v. Bridges, 137 Ga. 615, 74 S. E. 245. Cf. Ford v. Finney, 35 Ga. 258, 261. See also Union City &c. Co. v. Wright, 145 Ga. 730, 89 S. E. 822; Leffler Co. v. Lane, 146 Ga. 741, 92 S. E. 214. The early Indiana law allowed a remedy in equity only. Bird v. Lanius, 7 Ind. 615; and since the code has made legal and equitable procedure the same, it has still been recognized that the creditor's right is equitable. Davis v. Calloway, 30 Ind. 112, 95 Am. Dec. 671; Hendricks v. Frank, 86 Ind. 278, 284. How far under a statute in Virginia and West Virginia the creditor would be allowed more than an equitable right, is open to question. Apart from statute any right of the creditor is clearly derivative. In Virginia, see Vanmeters' Ex. v. Vanmeters, 3 Gratt. 148 (in equity); Jones v. Thomas, 21 Gratt. 96 (semble recovery allowable). Contra is Stewart v. James River & Kanawha Co., 24 Gratt. 294. See also McIlvaine v. Big Stony Lumber Co., 105 Va. 613, 54 S. E. 473; Casselman's Adm. v. Gordon, 118 Va. 553, 88 S. E. 58. In West Virginia, recovery was al lowed in Hooper v. Hooper, 32 W. Va. 526, 9 S. E. 937; Bensimer v. Fell, 35 W. Va. 15, 29, 12 S. E. 1078. But see contra Johnson v. McClung, 26 W. Va. 659; King v. Scott, 76 W. Va. 58, 84 S. E. 954. Montana Civ. Code, Sec. 3102, provides that "a contract made expressly for the benefit of a third person may be enforced by him." But in McDonald v. American Nat. Bank, 25 Mont. 456, 495, 65 Pac. 896, the court said: "There must be a consideration passing from the third person by virtue of which he may assert the existence of a promise in his favor." See also Tatem v. Eglanol Mining Co., 45 Mont. 367, 123 Pac. 28. 36 Waring v. Ward, 7 Ves. 332; Mills v. United Counties Bank, [1912] 1 Ch. 231. 37 Faulkner v. McHenry, 235 Pa. 298, 83 Atl. 827. Though thus held liable to the mortgagor, yet by Act of June, 12, 1878, the grantee is not liable to the mortgagee; while he is so liable if he assumes the debt. See case cited infra, § 383, n. 49. See also Lamka v. Donnelly, 163 Ia. 255, 143 N. W. 869. is implied from merely purchasing property subject to a mortgage, other than that the mortgaged property shall be primarily bound for the debt. It is necessary that there be a promise in terms to pay the mortgage, in order to impose personal liability. The word "assume" is the word of art ordinarily used to express such a promise. 38 The rule generally prevailing in the United States seems sound. There is no reason why purchase of an equity of redemption should of itself imply an undertaking by the purchaser to pay the mortgage. 39 §383. A mortgagee is generally allowed an action against a grantee who has assumed the mortgage. If it be supposed that the mortgagee undertakes to pay the mortgage, the question then arises can this undertaking be sued upon only by the mortgagor to whom it was made, or does the mortgagee acquire a right to enforce it. In England,40 Ireland,41 and Canada, 42 such a promise gives the mortgagee no right. But the only one of the United States where it has definitely been decided that the mortgagee cannot proceed against the grantee is Massachusetts.43 Of the other jurisdictions which 38 The grantee is under no personal obligation unless he assumes or agrees to pay the mortgage. Shepherd v. May, 115 U. S. 505, 6 S. Ct. Rep. 119, 29 L. Ed. 456; Hibernia S. & L. Soc. v. Dickinson, 167 Cal. 616, 140 Pac. 265; Lloyd v. Lowe (Colo.), 165 Pac. 609; Hubbard v. Ensign, 46 Conn. 576; Raffel v. Clark, 87 Conn. 567, 89 Atl. 184; Lippitt v. Thames L. & T. Co., 88 Conn. 185, 90 Atl. 369; Bristol Sav. Bank v. Stiger, 86 Ia. 344, 53 N. W. 265; Fiske v. Tolman, 124 Mass. 254, 26 Am. Rep. 659; Chilton v. Brooks, 72 Md. 554, 20 Atl. 125; Kerman v. Leeper, 172 Mo. App. 286, 157 S. W. 984; Lawrence v. Towle, 59 N. H. 28; Klapworth v. Dressler, 2 Beas. Ch. 62, 79 Am. Dec. 69; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Bostwick, 110 N. Y. 628, 3 N. E. 296; Keller v. Lee, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 184, 72 N. Y. S. 948; Henry v. Heggie, 163 N. C. 523, 79 S. E. 982; Van Eman v. Mosing, 36 Okla. 555, 129 Pac. 2. 39 As to whether acceptance of a deed containing a statement that the grantee assumes a mortgage is conclusive proof of such assumption, see supra, § 90. 40 Tweddell v. Tweddell, 2 Bro. Ch. 152; Oxford v. Rodney, 14 Ves. 417; Barham v. Thanet, 3 M. & K. 607; Re Errington, [1894] 1 Q. B. 11; Bonner v. Tottenham Society, [1899] 1 Q. B. 161. 41 Barry v. Harding, 1 Jones & Lat. 475, 485. 42 Aldous v. Hicks, 21 Ont. 95; Frontenac Loan Co. v. Hysop, 21 Ont. 577. See also Williams v. Balfour, 18 Can. S. C. 472. Re Cozier, 24 Grant, 537, contra, is overruled. 43 Mellen v. Whipple, 1 Gray, 317; Pettee v. Peppard, 120 Mass. 522, 523; Prentice v. Brimhall, 123 Mass. 291; Coffin v. Adams, 131 Mass. 133; Rice v. Sanders, 152 Mass. 108, 24 N. E. 1079, 8 L. R. A. 315; Creesy v. Willis, |