Cited by

Also see, Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , .

“The only logical rule,” said Justice Mitchell in Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39, 44, , 12 A. S. R. 613, “is that, to constitute ‘a mortgagee in possession,’ the mortgagee must be in possession by reason of the agreement or assent of the mortgagor or his assigns that he have the possession under the mortgage and because of it.

Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , , 12 A. S. R. 613; Jones v. Rigby, 41 Minn. 530 , ; Cargill v. Thompson, 57 Minn. 534 , ; Schmit v. Dixon, 189 Minn. 420 , ; Seifert v. Mutual Benefit L. Ins.

In the Stern case [110 F. (2d) 606], Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39, 42 , , 12 A. S. R. 613, was considered “squarely in point on the construction of the tolling statute.” There the defendant’s absence “was permanent in its nature,” resulting from “a permanent change of residence.” Concerning service upon him, the opinion states “the fact that Conant [assignee of the mortgage] might, n

Longfellow v. Fisher, 69 Minn. 307 , ; Cargill v. Thompson, 57 Minn. 534 , ; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , , 12 A. S. R. 613; 41 C. J. p. 612, § 580.

Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , , 12 A. S. R. 613; McManaman v. Hinchley, 82 Minn. 296 , ; First Nat.

As bearing on the effect to be given a taking of possession with the express consent of the mortgagor these cases may be considered: Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , , 12 Am.

tion which has been recognized by this court between an ordinary mortgagee and one who has entered into possession of the premises peaceably and in good faith, in the belief that a foreclosure of his mortgage has been properly made, will be seen upon an examination of Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ; Holton v. Bowman, 32 Minn. 191 , ; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , ; Russell v. H. C. *415 Akeley L. Co., 45 Minn. 376 , .

Folsom v. Lockwood, 6 Minn. 119 (186); Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , .

Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , ; Jellison v. Halloran, 44 Minn. 199 , .

Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , .

What will constitute a mortgagee in possession was fully considered in Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , ( ,) in which it was said, “The mortgagee must be in possession by reason of the assent or agreement of the mortgagor or his assigns that he have the possession under the mortgage, and because of it.” But whether the mortgagee’s relations to the title are in any way changed by his being in possession is a question we ha

“The assent, express or implied, of the mortgagor, that the mortgagee may take possession under or because of his mortgage, is of the essence of a mortgagee in possession.” Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , ( .)

See Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( ;) Holton v. Bowman, 32 Minn. 191 , ( ;) Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , ( .)