examination by the court, through the chief justice, that the state law impaired the obligation of the mortgage contract, and was forbidden by the constitution. This decision has since been repeatedly affirmed. 2 How. 612; 3 How. 716. * * * We are entirely satisfied with the soundness of the decision in the above case, and with the grounds, and shall simply refer to them as governing the present case.” The same doctrine is enunciated in Scobey v. Gibson, 17 Ind. 580; Inglehart v. Wolfin, 20 Ind. 32; Rucker v. Steelman, 73 Ind. 390; ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 77; Collins v. Collins, vi) Ky. 88; Coddington v. Bispham, 36 N. J. Eq. 574; Cargill v. Power, 1 Mich. 369; Maloney v. Fortune, 14 Iowa 417; Heyward v. Judd, 4 Minn. 483 (Gil. 375); Goenen v. Schroeder, 8 Minn. 387 (Gil. 344); Cartol v. Rositer, 10 Minn. 174 (Gil. 141); Phinney y. Phinney, 81 Me. 450, 17 Atl. Rep. 405. If a subsequent statute extending the time of redemption impairs the obligation of the mortgage contract, surely an act passed after the execution of the mortgage, which confers upon the mortgagor power to destroy the mortgage lien by creating a lien upon the land superior to that of the mortgage, is a law impairing the obligation of a contract. The district court was right in adjudging the mortgage lien to be superior to both of the liens for seed grain, and the order and the judgment of that court are therefore affirmed. All concur.
Foster R. Clement, Plaintiff and Respondent v. F. H. Shipley, Defendant and Appellant.
Foreclosure of Mortgage—Rights of Purchaser—Rent.
A purchaser of land under statutory foreclosure of mortgage can recover rent from a lessee of the owner as fast as the rent falls due under the lease, and payment by such lessce to his lessor after notice of the purchaser's rights is no defense.
(Opinion Filed Feb. 23, 1892.)
APPEAL from district court, Stutsman county; Hon. Roderick Rose, Judge.
W. A. Scoll, for appellant. D. A. Lindsay, for respondent.
