Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/458

 he should pay to plaintiff all rent falling due subsequently to such purchase. Despite this notice the defendant afterwards paid to the mortgagor, his lessor, the rent for the month of September, and it is for this rent that the action was brought, after the rent was due under the terms of the lease. The trial judge sustained the right of the plaintiff to recover, and we are clear that this decision was sound under these facts. Section 5159, Comp. Laws, provides that the “purchaser from the time of the sale * * * is entitled to receive from the tenant in possession the rents of the property sold.” The sale therein referred to isa sale which is subject to redemption. See § 5150,Id. A sale on foreclosure by advertisement is as much subject to redemption asa sale under execution. § 5421,Id. It is not true that § 5159 relates exclusively to execution sales. It refers to “the purchaser” as having this right to recover the rents, and we find on examining § 5150 that “the purchaser” is one who buys property sold subject to redemption. It would be extremely technical to hold that a purchaser on sale under statutory foreclosure should have no right to recover the rents, while a purchaser on sale under execution issued upon a judgment for the mortgage debt, the mortgagor having waived his mortgage lien, and secured a lien upon the same premises by the judgment, should not recover such rents. There should be, and we are clear there is, no distinction expressed or intended by the law between a purchase at an execution sale and a purchase at a mortgage sale. To both the law extends this right to recover the rents the same as the furmer owner. Our § 5159 is, so far as this question is concerned, an exact copy of the California statute. This act was construed in Reynolds v. Lathrop, 7 Cal. 43 (decided in 1857), long before the same provision became a part of the laws of this state. The case is directly in point. The syllabus states the decision: “A purchaser of land at sheriff's sale can maintain an action for rent against the tenant in possession under the judgment debtor before the expiration of the six months allowed for redemption, and as often as the rent becomes due under the terms of the lease existing when he purchased. The sale operates as an assignment of the lease for the time.” See, also, Harris v. Reynolds, 13 Cal. 515; Knight v. Truett, 18 Cal. 113;