Cited by

As far as now relevant, decisions such as Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , , and Martin v. Sprague, 29 Minn. 53 , , have been abrogated as to foreclosures for instalments by the 1925 statute.

This was the effect of the holding in Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , .

He did not know that, in the absence of such a clause,’, under the rule of Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , (see also Kleinman v. Neubert, 142 Minn. 424 , , and Hage v. Drake Marble & Tile Co. 145 Minn. 113 , ), he could, for default in an installment, sell for any larger amount and use the proceeds, so far as needed, to pay the unmatured portion of the debt.

Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , ; Pioneer S. & L. Co. v. Farnham, 50 Minn. 315 , ; Hage v. Drake M. & F. Co. 145 Minn. 113 , .

Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , .

This statute has been in force for many years and was construed and applied as long ago as Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , , and Taylor v. Burgess, 26 Minn. 547 , .

Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , , Loomis v. Clambey, 69 Minn. 469 , , 65 Am.

That question was disposed of against respondent’s contention as long ago as Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , and .

* * * Here the whole mortgage debt became due as an entirety, and was so treated by the mortgagee at the time of and by its foreclosure.” 2 See, also, Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , , and .

1878, c. 81, §§ 3, 4; Fowler v. John *17 son, 26 Minn. 338 , ( 3 N. W. Rep.

See, also, Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , and authorities cited above.

This was decided in Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 .

Tbe court below, perhaps misled by tbe language of this court in Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338 , held this to be tbe case and sustained the demurrer.