Cited by

re sales, and therefore confer a benefit on Pine Financial.” The district court concluded that the loan agreements cannot be separated and must be read as a single instrument, because “instruments executed at the same time, for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transaction, are, in the eye of the law, one instrument , and will be read and construed together.”

A real property mortgage has “two things, the personal obligation and the interest in the realty securing that obligation.” 4 George E. Osborne, American Law of Property § 16.107 (1952); accord White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367, 372-73 , 54 N.W.

Johnson v. Carpenter, 7 Minn. 120 (176); Hostetter v. Alexander, 22 Minn. 559 ; Oster v. Mickley, 35 Minn. 245 , ; Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 283 , ; White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L. R. A. 673; Watkins v. Goessler, 65 Minn. 118 , ; Moffett v. Parker, 71 Minn. 139 , , 70 A. S. R. 319; Paulson v. Koon, 85 Minn. 240 , ; Winne v. Lahart, 155 Minn. 307 , , 34 A. L. R. 844; First Nat.

Defendants cite cases beginning with White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L. R. A. 673, and ending with Kiewel Sec.

Johnson v. Carpenter, 7 Minn. 120 (176); Hostetter v. Alexander, 22 Minn. 559 ; Blumenthal v. Jassoy, 29 Minn. 177 , ; Oster v. Mickley, 35 Minn. 245 , ; Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 283 , ; White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L. R. A. 673; Watkins v. Goessler, 65 Minn. 118 , ; Olson v. Northwestern G. L. Co. 65 Minn. 475 , ; Moffett v. Parker, 71 Minn. 139 , , 70 A. S. R. 319; McManaman v. Hinchley, 82 Minn. 296 , ; Paulsen v. Koon, 85 Minn. 240 , .

White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , 54 N.W.

Plaintiff’s position is based upon the rule of White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L. R. A. 673.

White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L. R. A. 673; Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis.

211 ; Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co. 32 Minn. 90 , ; Bolles v. Sachs, 37 Minn. 315 , ; Grueber v. Lindenmeier, 42 Minn. 99 , ; Somerdorf v. Schliep, 43 Minn. 150 , ; Chute v. Washburn, 44 Minn. 312 , ; White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L.R.A.

White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L.R.A.

The trial court was of the opinion that under the rule of White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L.R.A.

“Instruments executed at the same time, for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transaction, are, in the eye of the law, one instrument, and will be read and construed together.” White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , , 19 L. R. A. 673; Brackett v. Edgerton, 14 Minn. 134 (174), 100 Am.

“Instruments executed at the same time, for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transaction, are, in the eye of the law, one instrument, and will be read and construed together, as if they were as much one in form as they are in substance.” Collins, J., in White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367, 372 , ; Brackett v. Edgerton, 14 Minn. 134 (174).

Counsel also cites cases, such as White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , ( ,) where there was an actual repugnancy or conflict between the terms of the note or bond and the terms of the mortgage, and it was held that the terms of the note or bond should control where the suit was not for foreclosure, but for personal judgment.

We have had occasion recently, in White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367 , ( ,) to consider the effect to be given to provisions of somewhat similar character in mortgages, but where the notes'themselves contained no such stipulation.