MORTGAGES. 2199

The provisions of the act of 1833, ch. 181, sec. 2, apply exclusively to Baltimore
city. Hays v. Dorsey, 5 Md. 99.

The act of 1825, ch. 203, held to be applicable to a mortgage executed prior to the
passage of said act. Hubbard v. Jarrell, 23 Md. 81.

Formerly where a mortgagor took benefit of insolvent law, the mortgagee or his
assigns lost benefit of power of sale under this section. (For present law, see art. 47,
sec. 25.) Mackubin v. Boarman, 54 Md. 385. See also Ensor v. Lewis, 54 Md. 397;
Queen City Bldg. Assn. v. Price, 53 Md. 401; White v. Malcolm. 15 Md, 545.

The portion of this section declaring power of sale to be divisible, referred to in
construing local law applicable to Baltimore city. Richardson v. Owings, 86 Md. 667.

Cited but not construed in Davis v. Blackistone, 108 Md. 641; Rosenstock v.
Keyser, 104 Md. 382; Bernstein v. Hobelman, 70 Md. 36; Stanhope v. Dodge, 52
Md. 493; Carroll v. Keishner, 47 Md. 276; Horsey v. Hough, 38 Md. 136; Neal v.
Hagthrop, 3 Bl. 573.

See secs. 23 and 32.

An. Code, sec. 7. 1904, sec. 7. 1888, sec. 7. 1826, ch. 192, sec. 2.

7. Before any person so authorized shall make any such sale, he shall
give bond to the State in such penalty and with such security as shall he
approved by the judge or clerk of a court of equity of the city or county
in which the mortgaged premises lie, or in case of goods and chattels, where
the same may be, to abide by and fulfill any order or decree which shall
be made by any court of equity in relation to the sale of such mortgaged
property or the proceeds thereof; and such bonds shall be and remain as
an indemnity to and for the security of all persons interested in such
mortgaged property or the proceeds thereof and be subject to be sued as
other bonds taken in the name of the State and subject to the same limita-
tions and disabilities as such other bonds.

The fact that no bond was filed at time property was offered at public auction,
there being no intimation that such omission in any way affected the bidding, does
not affect a private sale made after such bond was given. Hebb v. Mason, 143
Md. 353.

This section sets out the only pre-requisite of a sale under sec. 6. Heider v.
Bladen, 83 Md. 243; Erb v. Grimes, 94 Md. 102. And see Hebb v. Mason, 143 Md. 353.

In sales under sec. 6, the trust commences with filing of bond under this section,
and jurisdiction of court becomes complete on report of sale under sec. 9. Warehime
v. Carroll County Bldg. Assn., 44 Md. 516. And see Wilson v. Watts, 9 Md. 459;
Warfield v. Dorsey, 39 Md. 308; McCabe v. Ward, 18 Md. 508.

If a bond is defective, the defect must be raised by exceptions to ratification of
sale, and cannot be inquired into collaterally. Cockey v. Cole, 28 Md. 282 (qualifying
McCabe v. Ward, 18 Md. 509); Hebb v. Mason, 143 Md. 353.

Where a bond is filed on the day of sale, the law presumes that it was filed before
thfe sale. Hubbard v. Jarrell, 23 Md. 83; Hebb v. Mason, 143 Md. 353.

Where a bond filed in circuit court for Baltimore city is conditioned to fulfill any
order or decree qf Baltimore county court, the bond is a nullity, and sale will be
set aside. McCabe v. Ward, 18 Md. 509. Cj. Cockey v. Cole, 28 Md. 282.

If sale is made by an attorney or trustee under act of 1826, ch. 192, the bond
must be given by party making sale and not by mortgagee. White v. Malcolm, 15
Md. 542.

This section referred to in determining that a corporation cannot exercise a power
of sale under sec. 6. Frostburg Bldg. Assn. v. Lowdermilk, 50 Md. 179.

This section held to have no application. Reeside v. Peter, 33 Md. 127.

Cited but not construed in Gaither v. Tolson. 84 Md. 641; Condon v. Maynard
71 Md. 603; Webb v. Haeffer, 53 Md. 191; Harrison v. Annapolis, etc., R. R. Co.,
50 Md. 512; Dill v. Satterfield, 34 Md. 53.

An. Code, sec. 8. 1904, sec. 8. 1888, sec. 8. 1825, ch. 203, sec. 4. 1826, ch. 192, sec. 1.

8. In all sales made in pursuance of such authority there shall be given
such notice as may be stated in such mortgage, or if there be no agreement