remuneration during the continuance of the mortgage was valid. that, again, was a matter which was hardly open to question after the repeal of the usury laws. as my noble and learned friend lord davey pointed out in noakes v. rice(3), the additional remuneration is only interest in another form. such ..... i think, as regards mr. james bradley. his liability, in my opinion, was only secondary to his brother's liability. when mr. carritt, by his own act in calling in the loan, put an end to the liability of mr. w. m. bradley, the liability of mr. james bradley fell with it. nor the ..... understand how, consistently with the equitable doctrine, a mortgagee can insist on retaining the benefit of a covenant in the mortgage (1) [1902] a. c. 24. contract materially affecting the enjoyment of the mortgaged property after all principal, interest, and costs, and everything which has become payable before redemption, has been paid. ..... to prevent the owner of a property from using its value to the full extent in obtaining a loan on it, (1) [1902] a. c. 24. and, secondly, because it enables him to disregard a clear obligation undertaken for onerous causes. if the right of redemption of the mortgage is quite unfettered, ..... provided it comes to an end when the mortgagee is paid principal, interest, and costs. but in santley v. wilde(2) (1) [1902] a. c. 24. (2) [1899] 2 ch. 474. the stipulation was that the mortgagee should receive his share of profits after the mortgage was paid off, during the continuance .....