Cited by

gage did not survive the foreclosure sale at which the mortgagee was the purchaser, reaffirmed that a mortgagee purchaser at the foreclosure sale "may be granted the extraordinary remedy of a receivership sequestering rents and profits only to prevent waste or otherwise to protect and preserve the mortgage security.” 294 Minn. at 131 , d at 184 (citing Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , 78 N.W.

Marshall & Illsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; Nielsen v. Heald, 151 Minn. 181 , , 26 A. L. R. 29.” 176 Minn. 75 , .

Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112

Holt State Bank v. Hamernes, 171 Minn. 350 , ; Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; Gardner v. W. M. Prindle & Co. 185 Minn. 147 , .

In Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112, 115, 116, 117 , , Mr. Justice Mitchell speaking for the court said: “Under our statute, a mortgage conveys no legal title to the mortgagee.

Wyatt v. Quinby, 65 Minn. 537 , ; Hamel v. Corbin, 69 Minn. 223 , ; Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; Peterson v. Herington, 169 Minn. 65 , ; Holt State Bank v. Hamernes, 171 Minn. 350 , ; Windom Nat.

The mortgagee does not get them in reduction of his bid at the foreclosure sale (as in Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ), but in protection of his remaining and continuing security for the part of the debt remaining unpaid after the foreclosure for the instalment.

Lowell v. Doe, 44 Minn. 144, 147 , ; Marshall & IIsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; National F. Ins.

g. 1923 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) § 9572; Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; Justus v. Fagerstrom, 145 Minn. 189 , ; Nielsen v. Heald, 151 Minn. 181 , , 26 A. L. R. 29; Pioneer S. & L. Co. v. Farnham, 50 Minn. 315 , ; John Hancock M. L. Ins.

Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , ; Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; Nielsen v. Heald, 151 Minn. 181 , , 26 A. L. R. 29; Larson v. Orfield, 155 Minn. 282 , ; Windom Nat.

Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; Nielsen v. Heald, 151 Minn. 181 , , 26 A. L. R. 29.

76 Minn. 112 , ; Donnelly v. Butts, 137 Minn. 1 , ; Justus v. Fagerstrom, 141 Minn. 323 , ; Id.

Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , .

Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; Nat.

Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , .

Nielson v. Heald, 151 Minn. 181 , , 26 A. L. R. 29; Marshall & I. Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , .

Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , .

Ordinarily, under our law, the mortgagor or his successor in interest is entitled to the possession of the property and to the rents and profits therefrom1 during foreclosure proceedings and until the expiration of the period of redemption, Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , ; but, if he permits waste of a character to impair the security, and the security is inadequate and those personally liable for the debt are insolvent, a receiver may be appointed to take charge of the prope

Haugan v. Netland, 51 Minn. 552 , ; Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , .

Appellant relies on some expressions found in Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , and in National Fire Ins.

As to the matter of the insolvency of the mortgagor and the inadequate security, this court, in the recent case of Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112 , said that “The fact that the premises are inadequate security, or that the mortgagor is insolvent, or both combined, is, of itself alone, no ground for the appointment of a receiver, although it might be a very material consideration in passing upon the propriety or necessity of appointing a receiver for the purpose