purchase at their own sale and under their own foreclosure and power does not give them any greater right than any other purchaser at the sale. Whatever amount they bid is credited on the indebtedness, and, if sufficient to pay the indebtedness, operates to wholly extinguish the same and to release and satisfy the mortgage, and they then become, when a deed is issued, the owners of the premises, subject to prior incumbrances, the same as any other purchaser. If the mortgagee purchaser at such a sale lad any rights more valuable as a purchaser than a third party purchaser, it would necessarily result in unfair competition at the public sale. The mortgagee after becoming the purchaser, for the full amount of the indebtedness, certainly cannot claim any rights by virtue of the mortgage, after having extinguished the same and putting himself in the same position as any other purchaser. * * * By its purchase at the foreclosure sale, the mortgagee acquired the same title which the mortgagors possessed at the time the mortgage was executed and delivered, which was a title incumbered by the prior liens. In other words, it acquired through sheriff’s deed the same rights, that, and none other than the mortgagors possessed at the date of the mortgage or which were subsequently acquired by them, which was the equity subject to the prior liens. * * * The instant that appellant’s liens were satisfied, its right to invoke the rule as to marshaling of securities ceased. It was no longer necessary for its protection that it should invoke such rule. The object sought thereby no longer existed. * * *
“It should be borne in mind that the appellant acquired title through the foreclosure sale, not as mortgagee, but as purchaser, and consequently, as before stated, its rights are no greater than those of a stranger, had such a third party purchased the premises.
“Appellant suggests that a court of equity may treat a mortgage as still alive where the interests of the mortgagee require this to be done. This is, no doubt, abstractly correct, but this equitable doctrine is invoked only where the equities demand that it be done. Having purchased the premises, not as a mortgagee, but as any other purchaser, a mere stranger to the mortgage, might have done, we see no tenable ground for invoking such doctrine. Furthermore, we fail to see wherein appellant’s equities preponderate over those of respondent.”
In our opinion this reasoning and language are directly applicable to the facts in the case at bar.
