. For the development of foreclosure by sale, See 1 Glenn, Mortgages
405–407, 460–467. The Massachusetts practice of sale under a power of sale in the
mortgage, also utilized in England and elsewhere, achieves similar results. Id
. at 433–434, 610–614. See note 5
above. As to the action on the bond after foreclosure, it was first held that since
a mortgage was a pledge, the mortgagee had to be content with the land while he held
it, but that if he sold it and it produced a deficiency he could proceed on his bond.
Tooke v. Hartley, Dickens
785, 21 Eng. Rep.
1784). Later the position was reversed and an action on the bond permitted only before
sale, on the theory that since the action opened the right to redeem, the mortgagee
could bring it only if he was still capable of reconveying the premises to the redeeming
mortgagor. Perry v. Barker, 8 Ves. Jun.
527, 32 Eng. Rep.
1803); Lockhart v. Hardy, 9 Beav.
349, 50 Eng. Rep.
1846); see Dashwood v. Blythway, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 317, 21 Eng. Rep.
1072 (1729). If there had been provision for the award of a surplus of the sale proceeds
over the debt to the mortgagor, these problems need not have arisen. See John J. Powell,
A Treatise on the Law of Mortgages,
2:1001–1006 (London, 6th edn., T. Coventry, 1826). Even without such a provision,
they did not arise in Massachusetts. See note 15