On  the  other  hand,  if,  as  seems  to  be  most  in  accordance  with
principle,  and  perhaps  with  authority,^  a  conveyance  to  trustees
which  leaves  nothing  but  the  equity  of  redemption  in  the  grantor,
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  a  sale  of  the  property  itself  can  be
proper  except  through  equitable  proceedings.  Even  where  stat-
utes have  made  such  an  interest  subject  to  levy,  the  sale  will
not  deprive  tiie  corporation  of  the  use  of  the  property  ;  for  if
the  words  of  the  trust  deed  are  to  have  due  force,  it  can  only
be  deprived  of  such  use  by  proceedings  taken  upon  breach  of  one
or  other  of  the  conditions  of  that  instrument.  In  an  early  Indiana
case,  however,  it  was  held  that  the  sheriff  would  not  be  enjoined
from  selling  the  company's  equity  of  redemption  in  personalty
covered  by  an  "  after-acquired  property  "  clause,  but  that  the  pur-
chaser Avould  not  be  allowed  to  take  possession  of  the  property
until  he  had  complied  with  the  conditions  of  the  mortgage.^

§  344.  Inadequacy  of  Legal  Remedy  as  a  Ground  for  Interference  of
Equity. — A  consideration  not  emphasized  very  stronglv  in  the
cases  cited  in  the  latter  part  of  the  preceding  section,  but  ap-
parently sufficient  of  itself  to  turn  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  doctrine
which  they  announce,  is  that,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances

1  In  Commonwealth  v.  Susquehanna  &  its  effect  on  the  legal  title,  it  must  be  con-
Delaware  Kiver  R.  Co.  (1888),  122  Pa.  St.  sidered  as  the  equivalent  of  a  conimou-law
306  ;  s.  c.  15  Atl.  Kep.  448  ;  36  Am.  &  mortgage.
Eng.  R.  E.  Cas.  269,  the  court  said,  in  tlie  2  Coe  v.  McBrown  (1864),  22  Ind.  252.
