The ground upon which it is urged that this answer is insufficient in substance to constitute a defense is that if defendant Mantle sought to avoid the condition obliging him to personally assume and pay said debt inserted in said conveyance, on the ground that such condition was inserted by Diehl “through fraud, imposition, and deceit,” and the deed containing the same was received by his agent without authority, then defendant should, on discovery of the *504alleged fraud, have tendered a deed of the land back to Diehl; that Mantle cannot rescind or cancel part of the transaction whereby he took conveyance of said land—namely, the provision in the conveyance obliging him to personally pay said mortgage debt—without a restoration of the property to Diehl and wife; and that this should have been offered and set up in the answer of Mantle.
The court is of opinion that this objection cannot be maintained. Mantle acknowledges that he purchased said land from Diehl and wife subject to said mortgage thereon, but without any agreement to personally assume or pay the mortgage debt. Even if Mantle can avoid the alleged assumption or promise to pay said debt on the ground that he never assumed or authorized any one on his behalf to assume said debt, and that the provision for his assumption thereof was fraudulently inserted in said conveyance, this would not enable him to revoke the entire contract whereby he purchased said land. He would be bound in the transaction for the purchase, and could not throw back the land on the hands of Diehl, and recover the consideration which he paid therefor from Diehl, because there is no ground for that; but he resists the alleged agreement to personally assume and pay the mortgage debt, for the reasons above slated and set out in his answer.
That part of the transaction whereby Mantle purchased said property he does not seek to avoid, nor does he allege any cause therefor. But it does not follow that he cannot defend against the imposition of a condition upon him, which, according to the allegations of his answer, he never agreed to, and never authorized any agent to contract on his behalf, but which was fraudulently inserted in the transaction, by repudiating such alleged obligation as soon as discovered. If Mantle ought to tender back the premises to Diehl, then he ought to be allowed to recover the amount paid in the purchase of said property, but he could not recover the same because he authorized the purchase. He admits and appears to be willing to abide by the transaction, so far as he entered into it, or authorized it to be entered into on his behalf; but he seeks to defend against the imposition of the obligation upon him which he never entered into or authorized, according to his pleading. *505Manifestly the objection of plaintiff in this respect is based upon a ground in no manner affecting his rights. What does it either advantage or injure plaintiff that Mantle shall or shall not tender conveyance of the mortgaged premises back to Diehl? This point, if tenable at all, would properly be raised or waived by Diehl himself, but he does not appear at all in this action. No doubt it would be inequitable to put upon Diehl a deficiency judgment for said mortgage debt, or any part thereof, without giving him the right to become purchaser of the mortgaged premises on payment of the mortgage debt, because Mautle took the premises in question “subject to the mortgage”; but the law provides such right in favor of Diehl, without canceling the sale of the premises from Diehl to Mantle, as to which sale there is no question of fraud or deceit, or want of authority on the part of Mantle’s agent, alleged.
That there is no force in the proposition that his answer fails to state a substantial defense, because defendant Mantle has neglected to tender back the premises in question to his grantor Diehl, is shown by the situation of these parties to the litigation. The premises in question are beholden for the mortgage debt, and must go to satisfy the same. This is conceded by all. Therefore, if Mantle retains the property which he purchased, and had conveyed to him subject to the mortgage, he would be obliged to pay the mortgage debt in full; and that, of course, would relieve Diehl from the obligation thereof. But if Mantle does not see fit to relieve the property from the encumbrance by payment of the mortgage debt, the premises will be sold for such price as they will bring; and the deficiency judgment would, if Mantle has not assumed the same, fall upon Diehl alone, and the property would go to whosoever purchased it. Now, Diehl, in order to make the property pay the encumbrance, and avoid a deficiency judgment against himself, is at liberty to see that the property is sold for sufficient to pay off said debt, and thereby compel Mantle, if he keeps the same, to pay the debt, and relieve Diehl therefrom, or Dielil may become, the purchaser, and take the property, if he is compelled to pay the debt or any •part thereof.
*506It is therefore manifest, considering-the provisions of the law and the position of the respective parties, that there is no necessity to cancel the sale of said property from Diehl to Mantle, which undoubtedly rests upon other considerations, in order to give the party paying the mortgage debt the right to take the property. ■ The objection that the answer is uncertain and ambiguous, we think, is not well taken. Exceptions sustained. Judgment reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.
Harwood and De Witt, JJ., concur.