¶1 The plaintiff had a mortgage on a house and lot, to secure a debt due by J. Wiley Shook. The latter tore down the house, removed it and re-erected it upon the land of the defendant, Smathers. The jury found that the house when torn down was worth $150, and that the mortgaged property was impaired that much in value by .its removal. The Court charged the jury (there being evidence to sustain the charge) that if the removal of the house to the *573 land of defendant Smatbers, was with Ms knowledge and assent, and be knew before it was rebuilt on bis land that it bad been taken from tbe land covered by plaintiff’s mortgage, bis acquiescence therein made Smatbers responsible for tbe value of tbe building. In this there was no error. Horton v. Hensley, 23 N. C., 163. We were treated to an argument whether tbe lien of plaintiff’s mortgage was not destroyed by tearing down tbe bouse and rebuilding it upon Smatbers’ land. But this is not a case where tbe lien is sought to be enforced against tbe removed building — as .in Turner v. Mebane, 110 N. C., 413, where tbe bouse was bodily rolled across tbe road upon another tract.
¶2 Here no lien is sought to be enforced against tbe building, but tbe mortgagee asks a personal judgment against Smatb-ers, who acquiesced in tbe removed building being rebuilt upon bis own land with knowledge that it bad been taken from premises covered by plaintiff’s mortgage. Tbe Court upon tbe verdict properly rendered judgment against Shook for tbe balance due on the mortgage debt, and against Smatbers for $150, tbe value of tbe removed bouse, and by whose removal tbe plaintiff’s security bad been impaired to that amount, payment of said $150 to be credited on tbe mortgage debt.
¶3 No error.