Cited by

See, Cullen v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co., 60 Minn. 6 , 61 N.W.

At common law, a debtor could convey legal title and the right to possession, rents, and profits from real estate to the creditor as security for a debt, Cullen v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 60 Minn. 6

He relies principally upon Cullen v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 60 Minn. 6 , , and the cases following the rule there announced.

406 ; Cullen v. Minnesota L. T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , 61 N.W.

Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , ; Orr v. Bennett, supra.

deemed a conveyance, so as to enable the owner of the mortgage to recover possession of the real property without a foreclosure,” the provisions of the mortgage granting defendants the right to collect the rents and apply part thereof to the payment of the interest and principal of the notes secured by the mortgage were invalid, and in support of this contention Cullen v. Foot, Schultz & Co. 60 Minn. 6 , , is cited.

In Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6, 11 , , the court said: “It is clearly a species of waste for the holder of an estate, under which he is in possession, to take and enjoy the rents and profits and *100 neglect to pay the taxes, when it is his duty to do so for the benefit of some other right, interest, or estate in the same land.” T

Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , ; Orr v. Bennett, 135 Minn. 443 , , 4 A. L. R. 1396; see Justus v. Fagerstrom, 145 Minn. 189 , ; Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr.

Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , ; Orr v. Bennett, 135 Minn. 443 , , 4 A. L. R. 1396; Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr.

As was said in Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6, 10 , ; “The statute was passed to prevent him from doing this, and, so far as his contract contravenes the policy of this statute, it cannot be enforced.” So, as there held [ 60 Minn. 11 ], any attempt in the mortgage itself to assign rents for application upon the mortgage debt would be “an evasion

Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , ; Orr v. Bennett, 135 Minn. 443 , , 4 A. L. R. 1396; Larson v. Orfield, 155 Minn. 282 , .

Plaintiff urges strongly that the failure of the Windsor Holding Company, which holds title to the property, to pay the taxes, of itself constitutes such waste as to justify the appointment of a receiver and cites Cullen v. Minn. L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , , in support of such contention but in that case it is specifically held that “plaintiff must not only assert this right, but also make it appear that the rents so collected on the hotel property are sufficient to pay the taxes and insurance

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

Lowell v. Doe, 44 Minn. 144 , ; Haugan v. Netland, 51 Minn. 552 , ; Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , ; Farmers Nat.

In Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 60 Minn. 6 , , it was said to be “clearly a species of waste for the holder of an estate, under which he is in possession, to take and enjoy the rents and profits and neglect to pay the taxes, when it is his duty so to do for the benefit of some other right, interest or estate in the same land.” There would seem to

Cullen v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 60 Minn. 6 , ; Wolford v. Cook, 71 Minn. 77 , , 70 Am.

That this cannot be done would seem to be a necessary corollary from the doctrine of this court as announced in Cullen v. Minnesota L. & T. Co., 60 Minn. 6 , .

Cullen v. Minnesota, 60 Minn. 6 , .

The principal ground upon which plaintiff asks for a reargument is that in holding that Backus was entitled, as mortgagee in possession, to the rents and profits of the mortgaged premises, our decision is in conflict with Cullen v. Minnesota, 60 Minn. 6 , .