'.838 FEDERAL HBPORTEP.. �debt, Good'mg v. Shca, 103 Mass. 360; Byron v. Chajnn, 113 Mass. 308. See, also, Sanders v. Reed, 12 N. H. 558; Siiiiih V. Moore, 11 N. H. 551; 5 N. H. 54; and Hutchins v. Jfirefy, 1 Wall. 54. But in Kings v. Bangs, 120 Mass. 514, it was Iield, in an action by the mortgagee against one who had injured the mortgaged property by removal of fixtures, that evidence that the mortgagee under the power in his mortgage sold the premises for more than enough to pay his debt and ail prier encumbrances is admissible in mitigation of damages. �In Illinois the mortgagee is held to be the owner of the fee, as against the mortgagor or those claiming under him, and may bave an injunction to stay waste upon the mort- gaged lands. He is entitled to ail the rights and remedies which the law gives to an owner. Nelson v. Pinegor, 30 111. 473. �In New York a mortgage constitutes a lien upon and does not Test title to the land in the mortgagee. This is the law in Michigan, where the title remains in the mortgagor. Wherever such is the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee to the mortgaged property, the rule is that the mortgagee may maintain suit against one who impairs his security, and the damages are limited to the amount of injury to the mortgage as a security, however great the injury to the land may be. Van Pelt v. McGraw, 4 Comstock, 110. It has been in soma cases held necessary to show that the mortgagor is insolvent or not personally responsible for the debt. See Gardiner v, Heartt, 3 Denio, 232; Same v. Hitchcock, 14 John. 213; Yates V. Joyce, 11 John. 136; W'ilson v. Maltby, 59 N. Y. 126; Jones v. Gostigan, 12 Wis. 75T; Buckout v, Swift, 27 Cal. 436. �Upon the general doctrine as stated, where title remaina in the mortgagor, see State v. Weston, 17 Wis. 757 ; Jones v. Gostigan, 12 Wis. 757: Jackson \. Turrell, 39 N. J. 329, in a well-considered case. It is not necessary to say what the rule would be in Michigan in a suit by a mortgagee, when the mortgagor is personally liable and pecuniarily responsible. In the case at bar the mortgagors were insolvent. One case lays stress upon the intent with which the injury was ����
