¶1 We concur with his Honor in his conclusion that upon the facts of this case the action is not barred by *255 the statute of limitations. The defendant has had possession of the horse for about four years. At the time when he acquired possession the mortgage had been registered in the county of Person, where all parties to the sale resided, and the registration was notice to the world of the lien of the mortgagee. Parker v. Banks, 79 N. C., 480. The fact that the sale and delivery by mortgagor to defendant was in Virginia cannot affect the rights of the mortgagor or his assignee, the plaintiff. Hornthall v. Burwell, 109 N. C., 10.
¶2 When the mortgagor is left in possession he holds it for the mortgagee, and his possession does not become adverse until condition broken. An action for the foreclosure where the mortgagor has been in possession of the property must be brought within ten years after forfeiture. The Code, § 152 (3). A purchase from the mortgagor, the mortgage being registered, is not colorable title. Parker v. Bank, supra.
¶3 “ The rule is that the mortgagor and his vendee hold in subordination to the title of the mortgagee, not adversely to him ; and the statute of limitations does not run, even after the law-day is past, as in favor of the mortgagor or his ven-dee, without some overt act throwing off allegiance.” AYood on Limitations, 446.
¶4 The defendant claims also by virtue of the sale by the Sheriff to satisfy the tax .list which he had in his hands against Isaac Wilson, the mortgagor, but the legal title, b}r virtue of the mortgage, had passed out of said Wilson, and was not subject to levy, or in any event the property passed subject to the rights of the mortgagee.
¶5 While the plaintiff is entitled to the possession, the defendant may still discharge the mortgage debt and regain possession of the horse, if he so desire.
¶6 Judgment Affirmed.