subsequent encumbrancers, or persons who have acquired junior liens are not prejudiced thereby. Debts created, or advances made to a mortgagor subsequent to the mortgage, cannot be tacked to the mortgage debt to the prejudice of third persons, who have acquired junior liens upon the mortgaged property. That the doctrine, however, is applicable as between the mortgagee and the mortgagor is established by the foregoing authorities.

Some of the cases, which hold that, after an actual payment of the debt secured, the mortgage cannot be revived by an oral agreement to keep it in force to secure a distinct and independent debt, at the same time hold. that, where the mortgagor seeks the aid of a court of equity to enforce for himself the right of redemption, equity will require him to perform such oral agreement before relief will be granted. If, after the breach of the condition of a mortgage of land, further advancements are made by the mortgagee to the mortgagor, under an oral agreement that the mortgage shall stand as security for them, a court of equity will not aid the mortgagor or one who has no higher equity than the mortgagor to redeem without allowing for such advancements, in addition to the amount named in the mortgage. The doctrine has otherwise been stated as follows: "If the mortgagee makes subsequent advances to the mortgagor under an agreement that the mortgage shall stand as security therefor, neither the mortgagor, nor any one without equities superior to his, will be permitted to redeem without paying the amount of such advances in addition to the amount named in the mortgage." (11 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, -2d ed.-p. 230, note 4; Joslyn v. Wyman, 5 Allen, 62; Stone v. Lane, 10 id. 74).

*

In Upton v. National Bank of South Reading, 120 Mass. 156, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in discussing this subject, say: "The objection, that such an oral agreement could not be put in evidence, cannot be maintained. While an indebtedness, other than that for which the

mortgage was given, cannot legally be attached to such mortgage, yet it is competent, in answer to a bill in equity to redeem a mortgage, for the defendant to show that it would be inequitable to allow the complainant to do so upon payment of the amount apparently due thereon, inasmuch as the defendant had, for valuable consideration, orally agreed that it should not thus be discharged, but should remain as security for other debts." The court proceed to say, however, that where a question of title arises between the defendant and a subsequent mortgagee, attaching creditor or bona fide purchaser, the defendant can only enforce the mortgage for that portion of the debt actually due. (Williamson v.

Downs, 34 Miss. 402). The doctrine thus announced appears to have been endorsed by this court in the case of Brown v. Gaffney, 32 Ill. 251, in connection with the same case as reported in 28 Ill. 149. (See, also, Edwards v. Dwight, 68 Ala. 391).

If, therefore, the enforcement of the security in question for the subsequent indebtedness of appellants to appellee, under the oral agreement already set forth, is to be regarded as a tacking by the mortgagee to his mortgage of advances subsequently made, the defense of the appellants to the cross-bill upon that ground is not well taken. No maxim of equity is better settled than that he, who asks equity, must do equity; and, where a party seeks in a court of equity to divest another of the legal title to land, the court may impose equitable terms, on which relief will be granted. (Galbraith v. Tracy, 153 Ill. 54; St. Patrick's Catholic Church v. Daly, 116 id. 76; De Walsh v. Braman, 160 id. 415).

Fifth-Appellants, however, insist that the equitable title to the property in controversy, under the agreement of October 8, 1878, was not in either or both of the appellants alone, but in the heirs of Daniel F. Carpenter, and that, upon this ground, it would be unjust to require the debts of appellants to be paid, in order to secure a re

demption, which is alleged to be for the benefit of all of such heirs. This contention cannot be sustained, because the rights of the heirs were extinguished by their failure to redeem from the master's sale within the time limited by law, and by the subsequent issue of the master's deed to appellee. In addition to this, the agreement itself upon its face provides, that appellee was to hold the certificate of sale for his own benefit, unless Henry Carpenter, or the heirs of Daniel F. Carpenter, deceased, or some, or all of them, should, within fifteen months from such purchase, pay appellee the money advanced, etc. The payment made on September 1, 1882, was made with the money of the appellants alone, and not with any money belonging to all the heirs of Daniel F. Carpenter. So far as appellee was concerned, he had a right, under the terms of the agreement, to deal with Henry Carpenter, or with him and his brother, Daniel B. Carpenter, and not necessarily with all the heirs.

Sixth-We are unable to see what the appellants are to gain by resisting the enforcement of the security for the payment of their subsequent indebtedness to appellee. If appellee's cross-bill is dismissed for want of equity, or on account of the absence of any legal right to obtain the relief thereby asked, then the case stands upon the issue made by the original bill of the appellants and the answer of appellee and the amendment to such answer. By the original bill appellants seek to redeem the property upon the payment only of what may be due under the original agreement of October 8, 1878. The last payment made upon that agreement by appellants was made on September 1, 1882. In his amended answer to the original bill appellee pleads laches and the Statute of Limitations. More than fourteen years elapsed after September 1, 1882, before the original bill to redeem was filed in this case on May 7, 1897. It is clear, therefore, that, if the agreement of October 8, 1878, was a mortgage, the debt secured thereby was barred by the Statute of

Limitations when the original bill herein was filed; and the right to foreclose the agreement, as a mortgage for the security of that debt, was also barred by the statute. The right to foreclose and the right to redeem are reciprocal rights; and, if one is gone, then the other is lost. "If the Statute of Limitations then barred a foreclosure, it, for the same reason, barred a redemption from the deed, regarded as a mortgage, for the right to redeem and the right to foreclose are reciprocal, and when the one is barred, the other is barred." (Green v. Capps, 142 Ill. 286; Walker v. Warner, 179 id. 16; Jackson v. Lynch, 129 id. 72; Locke v. Caldwell, 91 id. 417).

Appellee expresses a willingness in his cross-bill to deed the property back to appellants upon their payment to him of the total indebtedness found by the master to be due to him. His offer, however, to allow the master's deed to stand as security for the total indebtedness must be taken as it is made, and it cannot be regarded as an admission on his part, that the deed may be enforced as a security for the original indebtedness, if it does not stand also as security for the subsequent indebtedness.

Seventh We are of the opinion, however, that the form of the decree entered by the trial court was not correct. The decree does not provide for the sale of the premises for the payment of the amount due to the appellee, but provides that, in case redemption is not made within the time limited, the title of appellee to the property shall become absolute. This amounts, in substance, to a strict foreclosure of what appellee, really and in effect, admits to be a mortgage to secure the payment of the original and subsequent indebtedness together. The general rule in this State is, that a strict foreclosure will only be decreed, where it appears that the property is of less value than the debt for which it is mortgaged, and the mortgagor is insolvent, and the mortgagee is willing to take the property in discharge of his debt. (Farrell v. Parlier, 50 Ill. 274; Boyer v. Boyer, 89 id. 447; Illinois Starch Co. v.

Ottawa Hydraulic Co. 125 id. 237). In the case at bar, the proof shows that the premises are worth more than the amount of the indebtedness found to be due to appellee.

The ordinary decree, on allowing parties to redeem from a mortgage, is that the complainant be allowed to redeem the premises, upon payment of the sum found to be due within a reasonable time to be fixed therein together with the costs, and directing the defendant to discharge the mortgage-or to convey the property to the complainant, if the defendant holds a deed instead of a mortgage as security-on the payment of the money, and that, in default of such payment within the time specified, the bill be dismissed. (Decker v. Patton, 120 Ill. 464; De Walsh v. Braman, 160 id. 415; Chicago and Calumet Rolling Mill Co. v. Scully, 141 id. 408; Bremer v. Canal and Dock Co. 127 id. 464; Harper v. Ely, 56 id. 179). But this is not merely a bill to redeem; it is also a bill to foreclose. While the original bill of the appellants seeks redemption, the cross-bill of the appellee seeks a foreclosure of the master's deed, regarded as a mortgage, for the security of the total indebtedness. The cause came on to be heard upon the making of the final decree, and relief was granted, not merely upon the original bill, but upon the cross-bill also. As the main relief granted is the foreclosure of a mortgage, the court below should have ordered a sale of the property, so as to permit the appellants to redeem the same in accordance with the provisions of the statute.

In all other respects than the one last mentioned as to the form of the decree, the decree of the circuit court is affirmed. In view, however, of the defect in the form of the decree, the decree is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to modify and change its decree in the respect indicated. Each party will pay one-half of the costs in this court.

Partly affirmed and remanded with directions.