one, Crowley, 226 Mass, at 585, 116 N.E. 241— of the broader rule that a mortgagee must have a valid claim to the debt before attempting foreclosure. Requiring reunification of the note and mortgage prior to the notice of sale arises logically as a rule from the fact that a mortgage urt in In re Marrón, foreclosure of a mortgage does not become impossible only when the debt has been extinguished; rather, “[a] mortgage cannot be made available without connecting it with the debt or duty secured thereby.” Sanger, 78 Mass, at 367 (emphasis added). Were a mortgagee without an interest in the debt able to exercise the power of sale, the note would be left outstanding as a valid obligation of the mortgagor to its holder. Cf. Cooperstein v. Bogas, 317 Mass. 341, 344, 58 N.E.2d 131 (1944) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he holder of the note could attempt to
holding that evidence of similar incidents is probative as to notice element in premises liability case recognizing defense in securities case recognizing double liability as a concern in a reach and apply case recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability recognizing contribution in the appropriate case