ART. 66] POWER OF SALE. 1521

general jurisdiction of a court of equity. Cockey v. Cole, 28 Md. 282; Ware-
hime v. Carroll County Bldg. Assn., 44 Md. 517. Cf. Warfield v. Ross, 38
Md. 90.

In sales under this section, the trust commences with the filing of the
bond under section 7, and the jurisdiction of the court becomes complete on
the report of sale under section 9. Warehime v. Carroll County Bldg. Assn.,
44 Md. 510. And see Wilson v. Watts, 9 Md 459; Warfield v. Dorsey, 39
Md. 308.

Sales under this section when brought within the control of a court of
equity, are governed by the same rules as other sales in equity. Gaither v.
Tolson, 84 Md. 641; Warfield v. Dorsey, 39 Md. 302. And see Albert v.
Hamilton. 76 Md. 308.

In view of the nature of the proceedings provided for by this and the
following sections, and particularly of section 12, subsequent encumbrancers
need not be made parties. Chilton v. Brooks, 71 Md. 448.

Courts apply the rules more strictly to sales made under this section than
to sales made under a decree In equity. Chilton v. Brooks. 69 Md. 587.

Designation of person to exercise power.

The party who is to exercise the power must be specifically named; the
mere reference to such party as the solicitor of the mortgagee, is not
sufficient. Madigan v. Workingmen's Bldg. Assn., 73 Md. 320; Prostburg
Rldg. Assn. v. Lowdermilk, 50 Md. 179; Queen City Bldg Assn. v. Price, 53
Md. 400; Chilton v. Brooks, 71 Md. 450.

The designation in the mortgage of a man's executors by the word "execu-
tors," is not such a naming as will authorize the executors to sell under
this section. If, however, the mortgagee is given a power of sale by the
mortgage, his executor becomes his assignee in law. and as such, may
exercise the power. Barrick v. Horner. 78 Md. 256; Harnickell v. Orndorf.
35 Md. 343.

Generally.

The power of sale is a power coupled with an Interest, appurtenant to the
estate, and hence passes to assignees of the mortgagee (at law or in fact).
The power of sale is not affected by the death or lunacy of the mortgagor.
The fact that a first assignee is incapable of exercising the power of sale,
does not prevent a second assignee from exercising it. Maslin v. Marshall,
94 Md. 484; Johnson v. Glenn. 80 Md. 370; Barrick v. Horner, 78 Md. 255;
Western Maryland, etc., Co. v. Goodwill, 77 Md. 278; Chiltou v. Brooks, 71
Md. 450; Bouldin v. Reynolds, 58 Md. 495; Mackubin v. Boarman, 54 Md.
384; Harnickell v. Orndorff, 35 Md. 342; Dill v. Satterfleld, 34 Md. 53; Berry
v. Skinner, 30 Md. 573. And see Erb v. Grimes. 94 Md. 108.

The language "terms and contingencies" as used in this section, does not
include the place of sale—meaning of such words. Where the clause in the
mortgage giving the power of sale, directs that the place of sale be outside
the county where the mortgaged premises are situated, there Is no valid
power of sale. Webb v. Haeffer, 53 Md. 190.

The only pre-requisite of a sale under this section, is that prescribed by
section 7. The sale will not be set aside because the mortgage notes were
not filed, no application having been made for that purpose and the indebted-
ness, and their ownership, not being denied. Heider v. Bladen, 83 Md. 244.
And see Haskie v. James, 75 Md. 572.

If a mortgagee is given a power of sale by the mortgage, his executor
becomes his assignee in law, and as such, may exercise the power. Barrick
v. Horner, 78 Md. 256; Harnickell v. Orndorff, 35 Md. 343.

Where a mortgage merely provides that "all expenses incident to such
sale are to he paid," neither the mortgagee nor his assignee is entitled to
commissions; contra, as to expenses incident to the sale. Johnson v. Glenn,
80 Md. 370.

A sale under this section is not within the fourth section of the statute of
frauds. Gaither v. Tolson, 84 Md. 641; Warfield v. Dorsey, 39 Md. 302.

A power of sale held not to be upon the terms provided in this section,
and that the proceedings In connection with the sale, did not comply with
the following sections. Korns v. Shatter, 27 Md. 90.