Opinion of the Court. subject to incumbrances, (although perhaps not then informed of the amount of the incumbrances,) he entered into possession of the lots, and thenceforth collected the rents; and within nine months after the conveyance he had notice of the clause assuming payment of incumbrances, and was requested to pay the plaintiff's mortgage, and declined to pay it or to recognize any personal liability for it; yet he afterwards sold and conveyed away two of the lots, and continued to keep possession and to collect rents of the other two. Having thus accepted the benefit of the conveyance, he cannot repudiate the burden imposed upon him by the express agreement therein, and would clearly have been liable to his grantor for any breach of that agreement. Blyer v. Monholland, 2 Sandf. Ch. 478; Coolidge v. Smith, 129 Mass. 554; Locke v. Homer, 131 Mass. 93; Muhlig v. Fiske, 131 Mass. 110. The case therefore stands just as if Ashford had himself received a deed by which he in terms agreed to pay a mortgage made by the grantor. In such a case, according to the general, not to say uniform, current of American authority, as shown by the cases collected in the briefs of counsel, the mortgagee is entitled in some form to enforce the agreement against the grantee; and much of the argument at the bar was devoted to the question whether his remedy should be at law or in equity. Upon the question whether the mortgagee could sue at law there is no occasion to examine the conflicting decisions in the courts of the several States, because it is clearly settled in this court that he could not. This case cannot be distinguished from that of National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, and clearly falls within the general rule upon which the judgment in that case was founded. It was there held that a contract by which the Grand Lodge, for a consideration moving from another corporation, agreed with it to assume the payment of its bonds, would not support an action against the Grand Lodge by a holder of such bonds; and Mr. Justice Strong, delivering judgment, after observing that the contract was made between and for the benefit of the Opinion of the Court. two corporations, that the holders of the bonds were not parties to it, and that there was no privity between them and the Grand Lodge, said: "We do not propose to enter at large upon a consideration of the inquiry how far privity of contract between a plaintiff and a defendant is necessary to the maintenance of an action of assumpsit. The subject has been much debated, and the decisions are not all reconcilable. No doubt, the general rule is, that such a privity must exist. But there are confessedly many exceptions to it. One of them, and by far the most frequent one, is the case where, under a contract between two persons, assets have come to the promisor's hands or under his control, which in equity belong to a third person. In such a case it is held that the third person may sue in his own name. But then the suit is founded rather on the implied undertaking the law raised from the possession of the assets, than on the express promise. Another exception is where the plaintiff is the beneficiary solely interested in the promise, as where one person contracts with another to pay money or deliver some valuable thing to a third. But where a debt already exists from one person to another, a promise by a third person to pay such debt being primarily for the benefit of the original debtor, and to relieve him from liability to pay it, (there being no novation,) he has a right of action against the promisor for his own indemnity; and if the original creditor can also sue, the promisor would be liable to two separate actions, and therefore the rule is that the original creditor cannot sue. His case is not an exception from the general rule that privity of contract is required." 98 U. S. 124. See also Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U. S. 194. In the earlier case of Hendrick v. Lindsay, 93 U. S. 143, cited by the defendant, a request, accompanied by a promise of indemnity, to one person, to sign an appeal bond, was construed to include another person who signed it as surety, and therefore to support a joint action by the principal and the surety, both of whom had signed the bond relying upon the promise, so that the only consideration for the promise moved from them. In the case at bar, the promise of Ashford was to Thompson Opinion of the Court. and not to the mortgagees, and there was no privity of contract between them and Ashford. The consideration of the promise moved from Thompson alone. The only object of the promise was to benefit him, and not to benefit the mortgagees or other incumbrancers; and they did not know of or assent to the promise at the time it was made, nor afterwards do or omit any act on the faith of it. It is clear, therefore, that Thompson only could maintain an action at law upon that promise. In equity, as at law, the contract of the purchaser to pay the mortgage, being made with the mortgagor and for his benefit only, creates no direct obligation of the purchaser to the mortgagee. Parsons v. Freeman, 2 P. Wms. 664, note; S. C. Ambler, 115; Oxford v. Rodney, 14 Ves. 417, 424; In re Empress Engineering Co., 16 Ch. D. 125; Gandy v. Gandy, 30 Ch. D. 57, 67. But it has been held by many state courts of high authority, in accordance with the suggestion of Lord Hardwicke in Parsons v. Freeman, Ambler, 116, that in a court of equity the mortgagee may avail himself of the right of the mortgagor against the purchaser. This result has been attained by a development and application of the ancient and familiar doctrine in equity that a creditor shall have the benefit of any obligation or security given by the principal to the surety for the payment of the debt. Maure v. Harrison, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 93, pl. 5; Bac. Ab. Surety, D. 4; Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves. 12, 22; Phillips v. Thompson, 2 Johns. Ch. 418; Curtis v. Tyler, 9 Paige, 432, 435; New Bedford Institution for Savings v. Fairhaven Bank, 9 Allen, 175; Hampton v. Phipps, 108 U. S. 260, 263. In Hampton v. Phipps, just cited, this court declared the doctrine to be well settled, and applicable "equally between sureties, so that securities placed by the principal in the hands of one, to operate as an indemnity by payment of the debt, shall enure to the benefit of all;" and declined to apply the doctrine to the case before it, because the mortgage in question was given by one surety to another merely to indemnify him against being compelled to pay a greater share of the debt Opinion of the Court. than the sureties had agreed between themselves that he should bear, and he had not been compelled to pay a greater share. The doctrine of the right of a creditor to the benefit of all securities given by the principal to the surety for the payment of the debt does not rest upon any liability of the principal to the creditor, or upon any peculiar relation of the surety towards the creditor; but upon the ground that the surety, being the creditor's debtor, and in fact occupying the relation of surety to another person, has received from that person an obligation or security for the payment of the debt, which a court of equity will therefore compel to be applied to that purpose at the suit of the creditor. Where the person ultimately held liable is himself a debtor to the creditor, the relief awarded has no reference to that fact, but is grounded wholly on the right of the creditor to avail himself of the right of the surety against the principal. If the person, who is admitted to be the creditor's debtor stands at the time of receiving the security, in the relation of surety to the person from whom he receives it, it is quite immaterial whether that person is or ever has been a debtor of the principal creditor, or whether the relation of suretyship or the indemnity to the surety existed, or was known to the creditor, when the debt was contracted. In short, if one person agrees with another to be primarily liable for a debt due from that other to a third person, so that as between the parties to the agreement the first is the principal and the second the surety, the creditor of such surety is entitled, in equity, to be substituted in his place for the purpose of compelling such principal to pay the debt. It is in accordance with the doctrine, thus understood, that the Court of Chancery of New York, the Court of Chancery and the Court of Errors of New Jersey, and the Supreme Court of Michigan have held a mortgagee to be entitled to avail himself of an agreement in a deed of conveyance from the mortgagor by which the grantee promises to pay the mortgage. Halsey v. Reed, 9 Paige, 446, 452; King v. Whitely, 10 Paige, 465; Blyer v. Monholland, 2 Sandf. Ch. 478; Klapworth v. Dressler, 2 Beasley, 62; Hoy v. Bramhall, 4 C. E. Opinion of the Court. Green, 74, 563; Crowell v. Currier, 12 C. E. Green, 152; S. C. on appeal, nom. Crowell v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 12 C. E. Green, 650; Arnaud v. Grigg, 2 Stew. Eq. 482; Youngs v. Trustees of Public Schools, 4 Stew. Eq. 290; Crawford v. Edwards, 33 Michigan, 354, 360; Miller v. Thompson, 34 Michigan, 10; Iligman v. Stewart, 38 Michigan, 513, 523; Hicks v. McGarry, 38 Michigan, 667; Booth v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 43 Michigan, 299. See also Pardee v. Treat, 82 N. Y. 385, 387; Coffin v. Adams, 131 Mass. 133, 137; Biddel v. Brizzolara, 64 California, 354; George v. Andrews, 60 Maryland, 26; Osborne v. Cabell, 77 Virginia, 462. The grounds and limits of the doctrine, as applied to such a case, have been well stated by Mr. Justice Depue, delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court of Errors of New Jersey, in Crowell v. St. Barnabas Hospital, as follows: "The right of a mortgagee to enforce payment of the mortgage debt, either in whole or in part, against the grantee of the mortgagor, does not rest upon any contract of the grantee with him, or with the mortgagor for his benefit." "The purchaser of lands subject to mortgage, who assumes and agrees to pay the mortgage debt, becomes, as between himself and his vendor, the principal debtor, and the liability of the vendor, as between the parties, is that of surety. If the vendor pays the mortgage debt, he may sue the vendee at law for the moneys so paid. "In equity, a creditor may have the benefit of all collateral obligations for the payment of the debt, which a person standing in the situation of a surety for others holds for his indemnity. It is in the application of this principle that decrees for deficiency in foreclosure suits have been made against subsequent purchasers, who have assumed the payment of the mortgage debt, and thereby become principal debtors as between themselves and their grantors." "But the right of the mortgagee to this remedy does not result from any fixed or vested right in him, arising either from the acceptance by the subsequent purchaser of the conveyance of the mortgaged premises, or from the obligation of the grantee to pay the mortgage debt as between himself and |