
    Fisher A. Hannum vs. Archibald Cameron et al.
    The ease of Watson v. Hannum, 10 S. & M. 521, establishing the construction of the redemption law of 1842, cited and confirmed.
    After a cause has been tried in the vice-chancery court, and a decree rendered there, dismissing the bill, upon bill, answers and proofs, and upon appeal to the high court of errors and appeals, that decree is reversed, and the principles of the case settled, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in according to them, it is not admissible for the complainant, upon the return of the case below, to vary, by an amendment to his bill, the phasis of the same facts, and ask another and diiferent decision upon them.
    C. being the vendee of W., of a tract of land, (which was, after C.’s purchase, sold under execution against W., on a judgment in favor of the Mississippi Union Bank, older than C.’s purchase, and bought by A. the attorney of the bank, and from A. redeemed by H., another judgment creditor of W.,) filed his bill against W., A. and H., alleging his purchase, and that he had tendered to A. the amount, in notes of the bank, with interest, bid by A. for the land, and offered to pay what was required for the redemption of it, and prayed that A.’s and H.’s deeds might be cancelled, and the land recon-veyed to him ; the defendants answered, and proof was made of the tender to A. ; the vice-chancellor dismissed the bill, but upon appeal, this court reversed that decree, and held the land subject for redemption for the space of two years from the sheriff’s sale; and ordered that unless H. was willing to advance upon his bid, C. should have the privilege of redemption, and requiring H. to make his ultimatum bid upon the return of the cause ; H. did so; whereupon C. filed an amended bill, setting up that he had actually paid to the sheriff a sum sufficient to cover the amount of the bid, by A. the attorney of the bank, and lawful interest before the filing of his bill; that H. was a non-resident; and that two years had elapsed in full, before H. made his offer to advance on his bid, and so it was too late for him to do so ; on this amendment the vice-chancellor decreed in favor of C.; but the high court, on appeal, reversed the chancellor’s decree, and considering the course of C. as a refusal to advance on H.’s ultimatum bid, dismissed C.’s bill at his costs in .both courts.
    On appeal from the district chancery court at Carrollton; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor.
    
      Archibald Cameron, Elijah S. Watson, and Elkana Sawyer, state in their bill, that on the 7th of March, A. D. 1842, Watson sold and conveyed to Cameron, for the sum of thirty-two hundred dollars, certain land described in the bill; the deed being recorded on the 5th of April, 1842, and exhibited with the bill; that Cameron contracted with Sawyer to sell him the land, gave him a bond for title, on payment of the purchase money, and delivered to him the possession; when Cameron bought the land, he knew it was subject to the lien of certain judgments against Watson, rendered in Carroll county, in October, 1840. On the 31st of October, 1842, an execution issued on one of these judgments in favor of the Mississippi Union Bank, by virtue of which the land was sold on the 5th of December, 1842, for the notes of the bank, and bought by Treadwell S. Ayres for the sum of twelve hundred dollars; the notes of the bank being then worth from ten to twelve cents on the dollar; the sheriff gave Ayres a deed, which is exhibited with the bill.
    On the 4th of March, 1843, Ayres executed a deed of the land to Fisher A. Hannum, of the state of Tennessee, a copy of which is exhibited with the bill; from which it appeared that Hannum had redeemed the land, by paying him twelve hundred dollars in the notes of the Mississippi Union Bank.
    That in November,. 1842, or May, 1843, Hannum obtained judgment in the federal court at Jackson, Miss.; and employed Ayres, as his counsel, to secure that land for him. Before Han-num had redeemed the land, or had paid Ayres any money for that' purpose, Watson tendered Ayres fifteen hundred dollars in the notes of the Union Bank, in payment of the redemption money for the land; and John A. Young, as agent for Cameron, tendered and offered to pay that amount, as the redemption money, about the same time. Ayres, not objecting to the form of tender, refused to accept it, saying that Hannum, as a judgment creditor of Watson, had applied to redeem the land, but not pretending that he had then paid the money; this was before the execution of the deed to Hannum.
    The bill proceeds, “ they also now tender and offer to pay to said Hannum and Ayres, the amount due for the redemption of said land, as may be decreed by this court, and which they now pay into court as it may direct.” The bill proceeds to propound special interrogatories, and prays that Hannum may be enjoined from prosecuting an action of ejectment which he has commenced against Sawyer, the deeds to Hannum and Ayres be cancelled, and for general relief.
    The bill was filed on the 6th of October, A. D. 1844.
    Ayres answered the bill; and states that on the 8th of June, 1842, Hannum obtained judgment against Watson, in the circuit court of the United States, at Jackson, for $>3,873-33; in November, or December, 1842, Hannum gave Ayres a power of attorney to collect and secure the debt; after Ayres bought the land, he informed Hannum of it, and that he could redeem the same, as a creditor of Watson’s. Hannum requested him to advance the money necessary for its redemption, and early in January, 1843, he wrote to Hannum that he had done so; and in February, 1843, Hannum sent him a check on New Orleans for three hundred dollars, which he received as full compensation for the twelve hundred dollars in Union Bank money, which he had paid. He being the purchaser of the land, and agent of Hannum, considered the redemption by the latter as made from the time he was requested to redeem the same, and so wrote to Hannum, early in January, 1843; from that time the land belonged to Hannum, and he relied on Hannum, and not the land, for the amount he had paid out. On the 1st of February, 1843, he executed the deed to Hannum, which was filed for record in March.
    He admits that Watson tendered him the fifteen hundred dollars in notes of the Union Bank, and his refusal of it; he states he refused because Hannum had already redeemed the land, and he told Watson he could redeem it by paying Hannum’s judgment, and not otherwise; he admits the tender by Watson was made before Hannum had repaid him what he had paid out for Hannum, but he states the tender was after he had advanced the money for Hannum. He states, also, that he believes the deed to Hannum was executed before the tender was made; when the tender was made, he considered Hannum the owner of the land.
    
      Fisher A. Hannum also answered the bill, setting up in substance the same facts stated in the answer of Ayres.
    It was in proof, that Watson, as agent for Cameron, on the 15th of February, 1843, tendered to Ayres, agent for Hannum, the fifteen hundred dollars in notes of,the Mississippi Union Bank, for the purpose of redeeming the land; and that Ayres refused to allow him to redeem, unless he would pay the amount of the execution in favor of Hannum against. Watson and others.
    This was all the proof, and the case was submitted upon it, the pleadings and exhibits. The vice-chancellor dismissed the bill, and the complainant sued out a writ of error to this court, which reversed the chancellor’s opinion; the case is reported in 10 S. & M. 521.
    On the return of the case to the vice-chancery court, in April, 1848, Hannum filed an amended answer and cross-bill, in which he offered to credit his judgment with the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars.
    Afterwards, in the same month, Cameron, on leave, filed an amended bill, in which he states, that the Union Bank notes tendered to Ayres and refused by him, were deposited with William Ransum, then sheriff of Carroll county, about the 1st of February, 1843, for Hannum, being an amount sufficient to redeem, according to the recitals of the deed from Ayres to Han-num ; and that no credit had been entered on the debt from Watson to Hannum.
    It was admitted by counsel for Hannum, that this statement in the amended bill was true; it was also in proof.
    Upon which the vice-chancellor decreed according to the prayer of complainant’s original bill, requiring Hannum to release his title to the land. Hannum appealed.
    
      J. K. Lea, for appellants,
    Cited Watson v. Hanmim, 10 S. & M. 521.
    
      Sheppard, for appellees,
    Cited Ex parte Raymond, I Denio, R. 275; Cooley v. Weeks, 10 Yerg. 144.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was formerly in this court, and the decision there made is reported 10 S. & M. 521, under the name of Watson et al. v. Hannum. The decree of the vice-chancellor was then reversed, and the cause remanded. The court in its opinion said, “ that the third and fourth sections of the redemption law are designed to keep the real estate sold under execution open for bids from the execution debtor and his creditors for the space of two years.” — All parties being in court, Hannum must be allowed to state his ultimatum price, and that be then submitted to Cameron or his representatives for their conclusion?’

When the cause went back, Hannum filed a written offer to credit his judgment with the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, which we must take to be his ultimatum. Afterwards Cameron asked and obtained leave from the court to file an amendment to his original bill, in which he made a statement in regard to his original offer to redeem before his first bill was filed, setting out the circumstances more in detail. Upon this amendment, and the proof in support of it, the court decreed that the title to the land be divested out of Hannum and vested in Cameron, and appointed a commissioner to convey.

These proceedings show an entire disregard of the order of this court. No attention was paid to the direction given, and the vice-chancellor reversed not only the order of this court, but his own original decree. This was done, too, not upon any alleged discovery of new matter, but upon an amendment of the original bill, setting out more fully the same facts which formed the basis of the original bill. It is surely not admissible for a party to try his case by halves, and after a decision against him in the court below, and a decree in this court determining and defining his rights, to vary the phasis of the same facts, and ask another and different decision upon them.

We cannot but regard his conduct as a determination to refuse to advance upon the last bid of Hannum. The offer was submitted to him in accordance with the direction of this court; his refusal closes the transaction. We shall not question the construction placed by the supreme court of Tennessee upon their statute for the redemption of lands sold under execution, in the case of Cooley v. Weeks, 10 Yerg. 144, cited by counsel in argument. We have adopted that construction in this case, which we esteemed most conducive to the ends of justice.

The decree of the court below is reversed, and the bill dismissed with the costs against the complainant in this court and the court below.  