The objections to the validity o'f the sale made under the power contained in the mortgage of 1898 are:
1. That the sale was not properly advertised.
2. That Mary and Elizabeth, who signed the mortgage, were sureties,, .and that the right to sell as to them was barred by the three years statute at the time of the sale.
3. That the right to sell was barred at the time of the sale as to all the parties by the statute of ten years.
(1) The mortgage does not state where the notices of sale shall be posted or at how many places. It simply authorizes a sale at the courthouse door in Hertford County “after first advertising the same for thirty days, or as the law directs.”
The statute in force when the mortgage was executed is section 1042 •of the Revisal, as follows: “All property, real and personal, sold under the terms of any mortgage or other contract, express or implied, whether advertised in some newspaper or otherwise, shall be advertised by posting a notice at some conspicuous place at the courthouse door in the ■county where the property is situated, such notice to be posted at least twenty days before the sale, unless a shorter time be expressed in the ■contract.”
Revisal, see. 641, requiring notice under mortgage, etc., for thirty ■days, was not enacted until 1905, and it is not retroactive, as it ex*186pressly says “that no real property shall be sold under execution, deed in trust, mortgage or other contract hereafter executed
Revisal, sec. 641, was further amended by Acts 1909, ch. 705, by prescribing as to newspapers “once a week for four weeks.”
Powers of sale in a mortgage are contractual, and as there are many opportunities for oppression, courts of equity are disposed to scrutinize' them and to hold the mortgage to the letter of the contract. It is essential to the validity of a sale under a power to comply fully with the-requirements as to giving notice of the sale. Eubanks v. Becton, 158 N. C., 234.
This is the rule,-but ini its enforcement “The presumption of law is in favor of the regularity in the execution of the power of sale; and if’ there was any failure to advertise properly, the burden was on defendant (here on plaintiffs) to show it.” Cawfield v. Owens, 129 N. C., 288; Troxler v. Gant, 173 N. C., 425.
How have the plaintiffs sustained this burden ?
The deed to the purchaser was introduced, and it recites that the sale-was duly advertised, which recital is prima facie evidence of its correctness (Lunsford v. Spaaks, 112 N. C., 608), and in addition, the uneon-tradicted evidence is that the notice of sale was posted at the courthouse door and at three other public places in Hertford County for thirty days- and published in a newspaper of the county for four weeks.
The only evidence tending to impeach, the regularity of the advertisement is that there was an attempt to advertise at a fourth place in the-county, and that the notice at this place was posted twenty-eight days,, excluding the day of posting and the day of sale. It would be a harsh rule to hold that this slight irregularity would destroy the title of the-purchaser if the mortgage required the notices to be posted at the courthouse door and four other places; but it does not do so, and in our opinion his Honor held correctly that an advertisement for thirty days at-the courthouse door and three other public places and a publication in a paper for four weeks was a sufficient compliance with a provision in the mortgage to advertise “the same for thirty days, or as the law directs.”
(2’) Admitting that Mary and Elizabeth are sureties, and that an action on the debt would be barred as to them within three years, it does not follow that the right to foreclose the mortgage in court or under the power is barred.
The Court said in Minzel v. Hinton, 132 N. C., 662, “It is well settled that an action upon the debt may be barred without affecting the-right to maintain an action to foreclose the mortgage given to secure it. Capehart v. Detrick, 91 N. C., 344. This because the bar of the statute-affects only the remedy and not the right,” and upon this point the-*187Court was unanimous, Clark, C. J., saying in bis dissenting opinion: “It is true tbat tbe mortgage is not necessarily barred wben tbe debt is and Douglas, J., in bis: “If tbe note is not under seal, it may be barred in three years, and yet tbe mortgage securing it might not be barred in less than ten years.”
At the time tbe mortgage was executed there was no bar to tbe execution of tbe power of sale (Minzel v. Hinton, supra), but tbe General Assembly has changed tbe law in this particular by providing tbat tbe power of sale “Shall become inoperative, and no person shall execute any Such power wben an action to foreclose such mortgage or deed of trust for tbe benefit of creditors would be barred by tbe statute of limitations” (Rev., sec. 1044), and Rev., sec. 391, subsec. 3, bars actions to foreclose a mortgage or deed of trust unless commenced'“within ten years after tbe forfeiture of tbe mortgage, or after tbe power of sale became absolute, or within ten years after tbe last payment on tbe same.”
It is evident, therefore, tbat tbe sale may be made, although tbe debt is barred at any time within ten years from tbe last payment; and as tbe last payment was on 14 April, 1906, and tbe date of sale was on 14 April, 1916, tbe power of sale was executed within ten years, applying tbe rule of excluding tbe first'day and including tbe last. Rev., sec. 887; Cook v. Moore, 95 N. C., 1; S. c., 100 N. C., 294.
This also disposes of tbe third contention of tbe plaintiffs.