ART. 21] MORTGAGES. 503

Affidavit as to consideration.

An affidavit held insufficient. It is essential that the affidavit should be
endorsed on the mortgage and recorded with it. The fact that the oath was
taken can not be established otherwise. Reiff v. Eshleman, 52 Md. 587.

Whether the affidavit is made or not is immaterial as between the parties
to the mortgage, and those claiming through or under the mortgagee; contra
as to subsequent creditors and purchasers. Hartsock v. Russell, 52 Md. 627;
Cockey v. Milne. 16 Md. 207.

Although the altidavit required by this section is wanting, or defective, if
the lessee has actual notice of the mortgage, he takes the property subject
thereto. Rnssum v. Wanser, 53 Md. 98; Reiff v. Eshelman, 52 Md. 588; John-
son v. Canby. 29 Md. 220; Phillips v. Pearson, 27 Md. 257.

An affidavit held to be bona fide and valid, notwithstanding the fact that a
portion of the mortgage debt was usurious interest. Smith v. Myers, 41 Md.
432.

Affidavit held to be in substantial compliance with this section, and made
before a proper officer. Stanhope v. Dodge, 52 Md. 490.

Affidavit as to interest.

Where there is no interest provided for in the mortgage, the second oath
need not be made. Interest, however, can not be covered up as principal.
Salabes v. Castelburg. 98 Md. 655.

Generally.

A deed held to be a mortgage within the meaning of this section. The
sections relative to execution and recording, refer to a technical mortgage and
not to deeds of trust. Stanhope v. Dodge, 52 Md. 490; Shidy v. Cutter, 54
Md. 677. And see Snowden v. Pitcher, 45 Md. 265; Carson v. Phelps, 40 Md.
96: Stockett v. Holliday, 9 Md. 499; Charles v. Clagett, 3 Md. 82.

Where the mortgage has been duly sworn to and recorded, it has the same
effect as if the mortgagee had been put in possession of the mortgaged prop-
erty. Cahoon v. Miers, 67 Md. 579.

Purpose of this section—a substantial compliance is sufficient. Marlow v.
McCubbln. 40 Md. 130; Nelson v. Hagerstown Bank, 27 Md. 73; Phillips v.
Pearsou, 27 Md. 256: Cockey v. Milne, 16 Md. 207. Cf. Den ton v. Griffith, 17
Md. 304.

As against creditors and purchasers, ov asignees of the mortgagor seek-
ing to redeem, the English doctrine of tacking or consolidation is inconsistent
with this section. Brown v. Stewart. 56 Md. 431.

Cited but not construed in Brown v. Freestone, etc., Co., 55 Md. 551; Van
Riswick v. Goodiue, 50 Md. 61.

See sec. 52 and notes.

See art. 81, sec. 190.

1904, art. 21, sec. 31. 1888, art. 21, sec. 31. 1860, art. 24, sec. 30. 1856, ch. 113.
33. The affidavit required by the preceding section may be made by
one of several mortgagees, and shall have the same effect as if made
by all; or the said affidavit may be made by any agent of a mortgagee;
and when made by an agent, he shall, in addition to the affidavit above
mentioned, make affidavit, to be endorsed upon the mortgage, that he
is agent of the mortgagee or mortgagees, or some one of them; which
affidavit shall be sufficient proof of such agency; and the president, or
other officer of a corporation, or the executor of the mortgagee may
make such affidavit.

An affidavit held to have been made in due form by the secretary of a cor-
poration. Frostburg Bldg. Assn. v. Hamill, 55 Md. 316.

The act of 1846, ch. 271, and the act of 1847, ch. 305, held to have been
sufficiently complied with. McKim v. Mason. 3 Md. Ch. 186.

Cited but not construed in Van Riswick v. Goodhue, 50 Md. 61.

See art. 81, sec. 190.