Tacking

Of Securities. The union of securities given at different times, so as to prevent any intermediate purchaser's claiming title to redeem or otherwise discharge one lien, which is prior, without redeemin:g or discharging other liens, also which are subsequent, to his own title. Jeremy, Eq. Jur. bk. 1, c. 2, § 1, pp. 188-191; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 412. The doctrine is not recognized in the United States. 37 Vt. 345. Of Possession. The connecting of successive possessions by persons in privity, so as to make a continuous adverse possession. 80 Hun (N. Y.) 287.

In English law, the equitable doctrine of uniting securities given at different times, to prevent an intermediate purchaser from redeeming or discharging a prior lien without discharging the liens subsequent to his title.' Suppose, for example, that there are three mortgages of different dates. The mortgagee first in time holds the legal title; the others are simply equitable incumbrancers. It, now, the third mortgagee buys the first mortgage, so as to become the owner of the legal title, he has a right to tack his two mortgages together, and receive the whole amount due upon both, prior to the second mortgagee. But this is allowed, when at all, only where the third mortgagee had no notice of the second mortgage at the time he took his mortgage. The right has existed in favor of those who have advanced money on the credit of land. The doctrine does not exist in the United States. A rule apparently analogous is found in cases where a mortgage is given to seciu-e future advances and the mortgagee is allowed to recover sums subsequently advanced, as against a mesne mortgagee.* 'See Williams' Case, 3 Bland, Ch. R. 227-35 (1828); Scribner, Dower, 663-76, App. A. p. 811. As to Bland's Table, see 3 Bland, Ch. R. 237-38; as to VTigglesworth's, see Memoirs Am. 'Acad. Arts. & Sc, Vol. 2, p.. 131; 10 Mass. 315. "Seel Story, Eq. §§ 414-15, cases; Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. •211 (1836); 18 Wall. 475. The reasoning in support of the docrine has been that where the equity is equal the law shall prevail. But this assumes the whole case. He who is prior in time is prior in right, and has the better equity. ' The doctrine is opposed to the policy and express provisions of the recording acts of our States, which direct that the rights of incumbrancers shall be determined by the records of their incumbrances."

.The doctrine by which a mortgagee quired at different times may nnite them with the eariiest, to the exclusion of