It is usually provided in a mortgage or deed of trust that the mortgagee or trustee, respectively, shall, on default of payment, have power to sell the mortgaged premises without going into court.549 v. Koon, So N. Y. 428; Bexar Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Newman (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 461.

541 Summers v. Bromley, 28 Mich. 125; Pelton v. Farruin, 18 Wis. 222; Banning v. Bradford, 21 Minn. 308.

542 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) §§ 1538, 1542; Hitchcock v. Bank, 7 Ala. 38G; Sheldon v. Patterson, 55 111. 507; Caufman v. Sayre, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 202; Shaw v. Railroad Co., 5 Gray (Mass.) 162; Heyward v. Judd, 4 Minn. 483 (Gil. 375); Woods v. Shields, 1 Neb. 453; Bolles v. Duff, 43 N. Y. 469; Higgins v. West, 5 Ohio, 554. But not in others. Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Cal. 461; Smith v. Brand, 64 Ind. 427; Gamut v. Gregg, 37 Iowa, 573; Jackson v. Weaver, 138 Ind. 539, 38 N. E. 166; Davis v. Holmes, 55 Mo. 349; Winton's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 77; Hord v. James, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 201.

543 Chicago, D. & V. R. Co. v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47, 1 Sup. Ct 10; Ellis v. Leek, 127 111. 60, 20 N. E. 218.

545 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1925 C.

546 1 stim. Am. St. Law, § 1926; 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1684.

547 1 stim. Am. St Law, § 1925 I-o; 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1608.

548 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1637.

549 l stim. Am. St Law, $ 1924 A,

In some states, however, such provisions are not valid.550 The existence of a power of sale does not take away the right to foreclose.551 Such a power passes with an assignment of the mortgage,552 but not to an assignee of the beneficiary under the deed of trust. In the latter case it remains in the trustee, who must execute it for the benefit of the assignee.553 The one holding the legal title under the mortgage is the one who should sell under the power.554 The manner of conducting the sale is usually provided for in the instrument creating the power, and is in many states regulated by statute.555 In the absence of a statutory provision, or direction in the power, the sale need not be in parcels.556 A mortgagor cannot revoke a power of sale, nor does his death have that effect.557 The power of sale is suspended by a bill to redeem brought by the mortgagor,558 but not when filed by a subsequent mortgagee.559 The surplus is distributed in the same way as when a sale is by decree of court.560

Sonne-PurcJiass by the Mortgagee at the Sale.

At a sale under a power, the mortgagee is not usually allowed to become the purchaser, unless permission is given in the mortgage.561 Nor can he become a purchaser through an agent, or by other indirect means.562 A purchase by the mortgagee, however, is only voidable, and not void.563 Nor can a trustee who sells the premises under a power of sale in a deed of trust become the purchaser,564 but the beneficiary-that is, the mortgagee-may pur-chase.565 The mortgagee is allowed to purchase at foreclosure sale under decree of court.566

550 1 Stini. Am. St. Law, § 1924 D.

551 Morrison v. Bean, 15 Tex. 267; Utermehle v. Mcgreal, 1 App. D. C. 859.

552 Bush v. Sherman, 80 111. 160.

553 Whittelsey v. Hughes, 39 Mo. 13; Johnson v. Johnson, 27 S. C. 309, 3 S. E. 606; Western Maryland Railroad Land & Imp. Co. v. Goodwin, 77 Md. 271, 26 Atl. 319; Banick v. Horner, 78 Md. 253, 27 Atl. 1111.

554 Miller v. Clark, 56 Mich. 337, 23 N. W. 35; Backus v. Burke, 48 Minn. 260, 51 N. W. 284.

555 Notice to the mortgagor and the public Is nearly always provided for. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 1924 E.

556 Loveland v. Clark, 11 Colo. 265, 18 Pac. 544; Singleton v. Scott, 11 Iowa, 589; Gray v. Shaw, 14 Mo. 341.

557 Reilly v. Phillips, 4 S. D. 604, 57 N. W. 780; Schwab Clothing Co. v. Claunch (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 922. Contra in Illinois by statute. 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, & 1924 C. And see Williams T. Washington, 40 S.c 457, 19 S. E. 1.

558 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1797.

559 Holland v. Bank, 16 R. I. 734, 19 Atl. 654.

560 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 1924 E; 2 Jones, Mortg. (5th Ed.) § 1927.

561 Griffin v. Marine Co., 52 111. 130; Jones v. Pullen, 115 N. C. 465, 20 S. E.

624; Garland v. Watson, 74 Ala. 323; Lovelace v. Hutchinson (Ala.) 17 South. 623. But see Hambrick v. Security Go., 100 Ala. 551, 13 South. 778.

562 Nichols v. Otto, 132 111. 91, 23 N. E. 411; Harper v. Ely, 56 111. 179; Tipton v. Wortham, 93 Ala. 321, 9 South. 596; Joyner v. Farmer, 78 N. C. 196.

563 Cunningham v. Railroad Co., 156 U. S. 400, 15 Sup. Ct. 361; Burns v. Thayer, 115 Mass. 89; Mulvey v. Gibbons, 87 111. 367; Connolly v. Hammond, 51 Tex. 635; Averltt v. Elliot, 109 N. C. 560, 13 S. E. 785.

564 Lass v. Sternberg, 50 Mo. 124. Cf. Stephen v. Beall, 22 Wall. 329; Felton v. Le Breton, 92 Oal. 457, 28 Pac. 490.

565 Easton v. Bank, 127 U. S. 532, 8 Sup. Ct. 1297.

566 Maxwell v. Newton, 65 Wis. 261, 27 N. W. 31; Ramsey v. Merriam, 6 Minn. 168 (Gil 104).