INTEREST OF MORTGAGE 243 



will be granted only on satisfactory showing that the se- 

 curity is actually imperiled; 1 and although the solvency of 

 the mortgagor is important, 2 injunction may be granted 

 where the mortgagor is solvent. 3 In a few states the mort- 

 gagee has no action in law against a mortgagor for waste 

 and must rely upon injunction; 4 but in most jurisdictions, 

 even where, under the equitable theory of a mortgage, the 

 title to the realty is in the mortgagor until after foreclosure, 

 the mortgagee has a right of action against either the mort- 

 gagor 5 or a third person 6 for an injury which affects the 

 security of the mortgage. The right of action of mortgagee 

 against a stranger will depend upon the extent to which the 

 debt of the mortgagor remains unpaid, 7 or possibly in some 



(Footnote 7 concluded from preceding page) 



Moriarty v. Ashworth, 43 Minn. 1, 44 N. W. 531; 19 Am. St. Rep. 203; Berthold 

 v. Holman, 12 Minn. 335, 93 Am. 1 Dec. 233; Dutro v. Kennedy, 9 Mont. 101. 

 22 Pac. 763; Verner v. Betz. 46 N. J. Eq. 256; Brady v. Waldron 2 Johns Oh. 

 (N. Y.) 148 (See Cahn v. Hewsey, 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 384, 29 N. Y. Suppl. 1107. 

 31 Abbott N. Gas. 387); Beaver Lumber Co. v. Eccles, 43 Ore. 400, 73 Pac. 

 201, 99 Am. St. Rep. 759; Scott v. Webster, 50 Wis. 53, 6. N. W. 363; Fair- 

 banks v. Cudworth, 33 Wis. 358 ; King v. Smith, 2 Hare 239 ; McLeod v . 

 Avey, 16 Ont. 365. cf. Hampton v. Hodges 8 Ves. 105: Wright v. Atkyns 1 

 Ves. & B. 314. 



1. See citations under Note 7, Page 242, and following: McLean v. Burton, 24 



Grant Ch. (U. C.) 134, (Canada) ; King v. Smith, 2 Hare 239, 7 Jur. 694, 24 

 Eng. Ch. 239, 67 Eng. Reprint 99; Hippesley v. Spencer, 5 Madd. 422, 56 Eng. 

 Reprint 956. 



2. Bunker v. Locke, 15 Wis. 635. 



3. Williams v. Chicago Exposition Co., 188 111. 19, 58 N. E 611; Triplett v. Parmlee, 



16 Neb. 649, 21 N. W. 403; Starks v. Redfleld, 52 Wis. 349, 9 N. W. 168; Fair- 

 banks v. Cudworth, 33 Wis. 358. 



4. Cooper v. Davis, 15 Conn. 556; Tomlinson v. Thompson, 27 Kan. 70; Vander- 



slice v. Knapp, 20 Kan. 647; See Triplett v. Parmlee, 16 Neb. 649. 



5. Colo. Arnold v. Brood, 15 Colo. App. 389, 62 Pac. 577. 

 Me. Holbrook v. Greene, 98 Me. 171, 56 Atl. 659. 



Mass. Searle v. Sawyer, 127 Mass. 491; Ingell v. Fay, 112 Mass. 451; Miner v. 



Stevens, 1 Gush. 482. 

 Mo. Girard L. Ins. Annuity etc. Co. v. Mangold, 83 Mo. App. 281; But see 



Girard L. Ins. Annuity etc. Co. v. Mangold, 94 Mo. App. 125, 67 S. W. 



955. 



Mont. Dutro v. Kennedy, 9 Mont. 101, 22 Pac. 763. 



N. H. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 42 N. H. 109; Smith v. Moore, 11 N. H. 55. 

 N. J. Jersey City v. Kierman, 50 N. J. L. 246, 13 Atl. 170; Jackson v. Turrell, 



39 N. J. L. 329; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Hoboken etc. R. Co. (Ch. 1906), 



63 Atl. 273; Coggill v. Milburn Land Co., 25 N. J. Eq. 87; Emmons 



v. Hinderer, 24 N. J. Eq. 39. 

 N. Y. Van Pelt v. McGraw, 4 N. Y. 110. 

 Vt. Langdon v. Paul, 22 Vt. 205. 

 Wis. Scott v. Webster, 50 Wis. 53, 6 N. W. 363. 

 Can. McLeod v. Avey, 16 Ont. 365; Mann v. English, 38 U. C. Q. B. 240. 



See 35 Cent. Dig. Tit. Mortgages, Sec. 555. 



6. Lavenson v. Standard Soap Co., 80 Cal. 245, 13 Am. St. Rep. 147; Gooding v. 



Shea, 103 Mass. 360; Webber v. Ramsey, 100 Mich. 58, 43 Am. St. Rep. 429; 

 Ogden Lbr. Co. v. Busse, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 143, 86 N. Y. Suppl. 1098; Van 

 Pelt v. McGraw, 4 N. Y. 110; Allison v. McCune, 15 Ohio, 726, 45 Am. Dec. 

 605; Atkinson v. Hewett, 63 Wis. 396; See Cases cited 27 Cyc. p. 1272, Note 24. 



7. Kennerly v. Burgess, 38 Mo. 446; Triplett v. Parmlee, 16 Neb. 649, 21 N. W. 403; 



Vogel v. Walker, 3 Utah 227, 2 Pac. 210. 



