36. Ante, this section, note 93b.

37. Wilkins v. McGehee, 86 Ga. 764, 13 S. E. 84; Johnson v. Johnson, 27 S. C. 309, 13 Am. St. Rep. 636, 3 S. E. 606; Baum v. Raley, 53 S. C. 32, 30 S. E. 713; Lockett v. Hill, 1 Woods, 552, Fed. Cas. No. 8,443.

38-42. Muth v. Goddard. 28 Mont. 237, 98 Am. St. Rep. 553, 72 Pac. 621; Cleveland v. Bateman,

21 N. Mex. 675, 158 Pac. 648; Grandin v. Emmons, 10 N. D. 223, 54 L. R. A. 610, 88 Am. St. Rep. 684, 86 N. W. 723; Reilly v. Phillips, 4 S. D. 604, 57 N. W. 780; Robertson's Adm'x v. Paul, 16 Tex. 472; Roger's Heirs v. Watson, 81 Tex. 400, 17 S. W. 29; Wiener v. Zwieb, 105 Tex. 262, 141 S. W. 771, 147 S. W. 867. In New York, though the mortgagee has view, that although the mortgagee has no legal estate, his power of sale is coupled with an interest, can be supported only by giving to the word "interest" a meaning entirely different from that given to it in Hunt v. Rousmanier. where it was evidently used in the sense of legal estate or right of ownership.

Procedure. The mortgagee need not, before proceeding to sell under the power, notify the mortgagor of his intention to do so,43 nor need he give personal notice of the time and place of sale to the mortgagor or other person interested in the property, unless required to do so by the statute or the provisions of the mortgage.44

The statute frequently contains provisions as to notice of the sale, to be given by publication or otherwise, and as to the manner of conducting the sale, and these are controlling, even when in conflict with the terms of the power in the mortgage.45 These latter control, however, in the absence of an overruling statutory provision, and they must be strictly complied with.46

Who may purchase. In the absence of a statutory provision or an express stipulation in the mortthere no legal title, his right to exercise the power of sale after the mortgagor's death, appears to be assumed. Jenks v. Alexander. 11 Paige (N. Y.) 620; Anderson v. Austin, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 319; Cole v. Moffitt, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 18; George v. Arthur, 2 Hun. (N. Y.) 406.

43. Jopling v. Walton, 138 Mo. 485, 40 S. W. 99; Manning v. Elliott, 92 N. C. 48.

44. Garrett v. Crawford, 128 Ga. 519, 119 Am. St. Rep. 398, 57 S. E. 792; Hoodless v. Reid, 112 111. 105, 1 N. E. 118; Jopling v.

Walton, 138 Mo. 485, 40 S. W. 99; Mclver v. Smith, 118 N. C. 73, 23 S. E. 971; Fischer v. Simon, 95 Tex. 234, 66 S. W. 447, 882.

45. Butterfield v. Farnham, 19 Minn. 85 (Gil. 38); Webb v. Haeffer, 53 Md. 187; Pierce v. Grimley, 77 Mich. 273, 43 N. W. 932; Bragdon v. Hatch, 77 Me. 433, 1 Atl. 140.

46. Bigler v. Waller, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 297, 20 L. Ed. 891; Shillaber v. Robinson, 97 U. S. 68, 24 L. Ed. 967; Calloway v. People's Bank, 54 Ga. 441; Hall v. Towne, 45 111. 493; Ormsby v.

Injunction against sale. If a person interested in the property has reason to question the right to

Tarascon, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 404; Cranston v. Crane, 97 Mass. 459; Thornburg v. Jones, 36 Mo. 514.

47. Knox v. Armistead, 87 Ala. 511, 5 L. R. A. 297, 13 Am. St. Rep. 65, 6 So. 311; Ellenbogen v. Griffey, 55 Ark. 268, 18 S. W. 126; Kennedy v. Dunn, 58 Cal. 339; Mutual Loan & Banking Co. v. Haas, 100 Ga. III, 62 Am. St. Rep. 317, 27 S. E. 980; Stone v. Haskell, 212 Mass. 283, 98 N. E. 1032; Houston v. National Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n, 80 Miss. 31, 92 Am. St. Rep. 565, 31 So. 540; Elliott v. Wood, 45 N. Y. 71.

48. McCall v. Mash, 89 Ala. 487, 18 Am. St. Rep. 145, 7 So. 770; Blockley v. Fowler, 21 Cal. 326, 82 Am. Dec. 747; Copsey v. Sacramento Bank, 133 Cal. 659, 85 Am. St. Rep. 238, 66 Pac. 7; Hall v. Towne, 45 111. 493; Howard v. Ames, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 308; Dyer v. Shurtleff, 112 Mass. 165; Allen v. Ranson, 44 Mo. 263, 100

Am. Dec. 282; McKenna v. Pleasant, 96 Neb. 581, 148 N. W. 479; Very v. Russell, 65 N. H. 646; Shew v. Call, 119 N. C. 450, 56 Am. St. Rep. 678, 26 S. E. 33; Owens v. Branning Mfg. Co., 168 N. C. 397, 84 S. E. 389. Contra, Bohn v. Davis, 75 Tex. 24, 12 S. W. 837.

49. Carter v. Thompson, 41 Ala. 375; Walker v. McEntire, 41 App. Cas. (D. C.) 380; Sypher v. McHenry, 18 Iowa, 232; Jodd v. Lee, 256 Mo. 536, 165 S. W. 991; Harrison v. Manson, 95 Va. 593, 29 S. E. 420.

50. Easton v. German-American Bank, 127 U, S. 532, 32 L. Ed. 210; Hamilton v. Rhodes, 72 Ark. 625, 83 S. W. 351; Sacramento Bank v. Copsey, 133 Cal. 663, 85 Am. St. Rep. 242, 66 Pac. 7; Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Barker, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 205; Monroe v. Fuchtler, 121 N. C. 101, 28 S. E. 63.

3 R P. - 29 make a sale under the power, his remedy is to seek an injunction in a court of equity to restrain the proposed sale. The sale will not be restrained merely because it is likely to involve a sacrifice of the property,51 nor because the person asking for an injunction desires a foreclosure under decree of court.52 It has even been decided, in one state, that a sale will not be enjoined because the statute of limitations has run against the mortgage, although this would be a good defence to a proceeding in equity to foreclose.53 On the other hand, a sale has been enjoined on the ground that the debt which purported to be secured had never existed,53a had been paid,53b or tendered,54 or was not yet due.55 The fact that the amount of the debt is uncertain has been regarded as ground for enjoining a sale until an accounting could be effected.56 And in one

51. Anderson v. White, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 408; Bedell v. Mc-Clellan, 11 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 172; Muller's Adm'r v. Stone, 84 Va. 834, 10 Am. St. Rep. 889, 6 S. E. 223.

52. Muller's Adm'r v. Stone, 84 Va. 834, 10 Am. St. Rep. 889, 6 S. E. 223.

53. House v. Carr, 185 N. Y. 453, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 510, 113 Am. St. Rep. 936, 78 N. E. 171. Contra, Gardner v. Terry, 99 Mo. 523, 7 L. R. A. 67, 12 S. W. 888. In Hutaff v. Adrian, 112 N. C. 259, 17 S. E. 78, an injunction against the sale was dissolved under such circumstances, because the sale would be a nullity, and the mortgagor could defend in ejectment by the purchaser.