under  which  the  mortgagee  is  let  into  possession  of  the  mort-
gaged property  until  the  rents  and  profits  of  it  repay  the
money  borrowed  (2  Blac.  Com.  157),  the  property  being
redeemable  at  any  time  on  payment  of  principal  and  interest
due.  Yates  v.  Ha.mhley,  2  Atk.  363  ;  see  Fenwick  v.  Reed,
1  Mer.  114,  122.  In  early  times  such  mortgages  were  com-
mon, but  they  are  now  rare.  See  a  mortgage  of  tolls,  &c.
in  the  nature  of  a  Welsh  mortgage,  Jortin  v.  S.  E.  R.  Co.,
6  D.,  M.  &  G-.  270 ;  cons.  Douglas  v.  Culverwell,  4  D.,  F.
&  J.  20,  27,  which  appears  to  have  been  a  Welsh  mortgage,
or  in  the  nature  of  one.
Covenant  to  pay  Mortgage  Debt.]     The  want  of  a  cove-  Want  of,  imma-
nant  to   pay  the  mortgage   debt  is  in  general   immaterial    ^^ '
( Goodman  v.  Grierson,  2  Ba.  &  Be.  27»),  for  every  mort-
gage implies  a  debt  on  the  part  of  the  mortgagor  {King  v.
King,  3  P.  W.  358);   though  a  simple  contract  debt  only  simple  contract
where  there  is  no  covenant  {Yates  v.  Aston  ,4  Q.  B.  182;  ""P^^i^i'y d«"-
Courtney  v.  Taylor,  6  M.  &  Gr.  851  ;  Adey  v.  Arnold,  2
D.,  M.  &  G-.  432  ;   Isaacson  v.  Harwood,  Brook  v.  Hai--
U'ood,  L.  E.,  3  Ch.  225),  unless  there  is  such  an  acknowledg-
ment of  the  debt  in  the  mortgage  deed  that  a  covenant  to
pay  will  be  implied  {Mnrryat  v.  Marry  at,  28  Bea.  224);  for
"  whatever  words  are  used  by  a  party  to  a  deed,  if  he  intends
that  they  shall  operate  as  a  covenant,  he  will  be  held  liable."
Per  Lord  Cairns,  L.  J.,  L.  R.,  3  Ch.  228;  see  Saunders  v.
