This appeal brings into review a decree for the foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate and a sale of the mortgaged premises, and dismissing a cross-bill filed by the appellants praying that the mortgage might be declared not to be a lien on the premises and delivered up to be canceled. The mortgage in question was dated February 24, 1869, and was made by Cyrenius Beers and Mary Beers, his wife, to secure payment of a debt due from the husband to the mortgagee, according to the terms of his bond, conditioned for the payment thereof on February 24, 1874, with interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually. The title to the real estate mortgaged is recited in the mortgage to be in the wife. Mary Beers died, leaving a will, which was duly admitted to probate in March, 1872. It is as follows:-
This extension of the time of payment of the mortgage debt was made without any consent thereto on the part of the appellants. It is claimed on their behalf that, as owners of the estate mortgaged by the testatrix to secure the debt of her husband, they are in the position of sureties, and that the extension of time for the payment of the debt, without authority from them, is, in equity, a discharge of the lien of the mortgage. The appellee insists, in reply to this claim, that the agreement by which further time was given for the payment of the debt, during which the mortgage was continued in force, was authorized by the will of Mary Beers and binds her devisees. Whether this be so is the precise question we are required to decide.
We are reminded, at the outset of the argument, by the counsel for the appellants, that, being sureties, they are favorites of the law; that their contract is strictissimi juris; and that nothing is to be taken against them by intendment or construction. It is quite true that 'the extent of the liability to be incurred must be expressed by the surety, or necessarily comprised in the terms used in the obligation or contract;' that is, 'the obligation is not to be extended to any other subject, to any other person, or to any other period of time than is expressed or necessarily included in it.' 'In this sense only,' continues Mr. Burge, Law Surety, (1st Amer. Ed.) 40, 'must be understood the expression that the contract of the surety is to be construed strictly. It is subject to the same rules of construction and interpretation as every other contract.' Besides, the rule of construction applies only to the contract itself, and not to matters collateral and incidental, or which arise in execution of it, which are to be governed by the same rules that apply in like circumstances, whatever the relation of the parties. So that the fact that the appellants occupy the relation of sureties cannot control the determination of the question whether the agreement extending the time of payment of the mortgage, debt, and the continuance of the mortgage as an incumbrance upon the estate, was a valid execution of the powers conferred by the will of the testatrix. That question must be answered according to its own rules.