
    Elijah S. Watson et al. vs. Fisher A. Hannum et al.
    The vendee of land, subject to execution against the vendor, is substituted to the right of redemption, which the vendor enjoys under the first section of the redemption law of 1842 ; and when the land is sold under the execution against his vendor, he may redeem it according to the statute.
    Where land has been sold under execution, which the defendant in execution had subsequent to the judgment against him, but prior to the sale under execution, sold to a third party, such vendee will have the right under the redemption law to redeem the land from the sheriff’s vendee; and where another judgment-creditor of the defendant, in the first execution, has redeemed the land from the sheriff’s vendee, the first vendee will have the right to redeem from such judgment creditor by paying him the amount he paid the sheriff’s vendee and the statutory interest; but in such case the judgment-creditor will have the right to advance on his bid, and if he is willing to credit his execution with or pay, more than the first vendee is willing to pay, he will hold the land ; if otherwise, the first vendee can still redeem from him.
    It seems that under the redemption law, when the defendant in execution, or his vendee, wishes to redeem land sold under execution, which land the sheriff’s vendee has already conveyed to a judgment-creditor of the defendant in execution, who has redeemed it from the sheriff’s vendee, the defendant in execution, or his vendee, must tender their redemption money to such judgment-creditor, or if he be a non-resident, to the sheriff of the county; yet if the vendee of the defendant in execution, before the expiration of the two years allowed for redemption, files his bill for redemption against all the parties, and offers to pay whatever redemption money is due, it will be a sufficient offer to redeem, and the chancery court should then compel the judgment-creditor to state the ultimatum to whieh he will advance his bid, and submit that to the conclusion of the defendant in execution’s vendee.
    Where property has been sold under execution in favor of a bank, the notes of which are at a depreciation, and a judgment-creditor of the defendant in execution has redeemed from the sheriff’s vendee, by paying the agreed value in specie, of his bid, which was paid in the notes of the bank, the defendant in execution, or his vendee, in seeking to redeem, need only tender to the judgment-creditor the amount in good money with the statutory interest, which, the judgment-creditor paid the sheriff’s vendee, and such additional sum as the judgment-creditor may be willing to advance on his bid.
    In error 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 Hannum 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 Han-num, 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 Han-num’s judgment, and not otherwise; he admits the tender by Watson was made before Hannum had repaid him what he had paid oat 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 Han-num, 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 this writ of error.
    Sheppard, for plaintiff in error.
    1. Under the second section of the redemption law, Hannum could not redeem or have the benefit of the act, as Watson had no interest in the land at the time of the sheriff’s sale. Elliott v. Patton, 4 Yerg. R. 14.
    2. The right to redeem passed to Cameron; the deed to Hannum shows that he redeemed with Union Bank money. Cameron tendered a greater amount than the sum paid, with interest. This was sufficient, and entitled Cameron, who stood in the place of Watson, to the land.
    3. The redemption law, in its application to judgments before its passage, is constitutional. McGehe v. Handley, 5 How. (Mi.) R. 625; Marlow v. Pickens, 2 S. & M. 428. The redemption law and valuation law stand on the same basis.
    4. The case of Bronson v. Kinzie et al. 1 How. S. C. R. 329, is predicated on the ground that the right of the mortgagee is fixed by the terms of the contract, and the law of Illinois, being inconsistent with those terms, could net be enforced. That objection does not apply to the law of 1842, of this state. The purchaser of the land acquires the right to instant possession and profits; and gets his money and interest to case of redemption, he is not in the least delayed.
    
      J. K. Lea, for defendants in error.
    1. Cameron was not a bona fide creditor of Watson ; that is, he was not a judgment creditor, and therefore had no right to redeem under the redemption act. Woods v. McGavock, 10 Yerg. 133.
    2. Cameron’s application, through Watson, to redeem, was made after the sale to Hannum, and redemption by him; it was therefore too late.
    
      D. Shelton, for Hannum.
    1. The particular relief prayed for is the cancelment of the deeds to Ayres and Hannum; under the prayer for general relief the complainant cannot have relief inconsistent with his particular relief; the redemption from Hannum is inconsistent with the general relief prayed for, and therefore cannot be decreed. 2 Paige, 396; 14 Johns. R. 529-560; 1 Yes. Jr. 426 ; 5 S. & M. 745.
    2. Cameron, when he offered to redeem, was not of the description of persons authorized to do so by the act; none but the debtor and a bona fide creditor may redeem. If the construction be allowed that a purchaser from the debtor is substituted to his rights, it will afford great facilities for fraudulent collusion between the debtor and a pretended sub-purchaser, to the entire defeat of the creditors.
    3. Cameron did not make such a tender as Ayres was bound to accept, even if he had then been the holder of the interest bought by him. Ayres paid the money in the notes of the bank, it is true; but their value was daily fluctuating, and there is no proof that the fifteen hundred dollars tendered were equal in value to the amount paid by Ayres, when he paid it; Ayres had a right either to good money, or at least to the value in good money, of the notes be paid with interest.
    4. Hannum’s redemption was in advance of Cameron’s tender, and therefore Cameron could only redeem from Hannum, and not from Ayres. See the 5th section of the act.
   Mr. Justice Thachek

delivered the opinion of the court.

In March, 1842, Cameron purchased a tract of land of Wat.son. At this time the land was subject to the lien of certain judgments against Watson, in favor of the Mississippi Union Bank. Cameron gave Sawyer a bond to make him a title to the land, and put him in possession. Afterwards, in December, 1842, the land was sold at sheriff’s sale, under the judgment ; and Ayres, the attorney of the bank, became the purchaser of the land for the bank, for the sum of $1200, in the notes of the bank, then valued at from ten to twelve cents on the dollar. On the 1st day of February, 1843, Ayres made a conveyance of the land to Hannum, resident in Tennessee, who had redeemed the land, as a creditor of Watson, by judgments obtained against him in June, 1842. Hannum, shortly after the purchase by Ayres at the sheriff’s sale, had authorized Ayres, and requested him to advance the amount, necessary to redeem the land. Ayres subsequently took from Hannum a •check for $300, in full for the $1200 in the notes of the Mississippi Union Bank. After Ayres had acted thus in this behalf for Hannum, and on the 15th day of February, 1843, Watson, as agent for Cameron, tendered Ayres $1500 in the notes of the Mississippi Union Bank, for the purpose of redeeming the land, which Ayres refused. The prayer of the bill is, that the deeds of Ayres and Hannum may be cancelled, and that they be required to reconvey the land, and for appropriate relief.

The vice-chancellor decreed the dismissal of the bill.

Cameron, by the purchase of the land from Watson, became substituted to the right to redeem, which Watson enjoyed under the first section of the Redemption Law of 1842. Elliot v. Patton, 4 Yerger, 10. Hannum had redeemed the land from the purchaser under the judgment of the bank against Watson, at the expense of $300, which was received as full consideration for the redemption. This was the first redemption made of the land. Probably, the application of Cameron, through Watson, as his agent, to Ayres, to redeem the land, should have been made rather to Hannum, or as he is a non-resident, to the sheriff of the county. But the bill of Cameron was filed within the two years allowed by law for redemption, and, as Hannum is a party, it may properly be viewed as an application to redeem the land. In his bill, Cameron tenders such an amount as may be due in redemption, which is equivalent to a bid of the amount paid by Hannum, and the statutory interest. 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. Unless, therefore, Hannum is willing to advance upon his bid, by expressing a willingness to make a greater credit upon his execution against Watson, Cameron is entitled to redeem upon the terms made by Hannum with Ayres, together with the interest and expenses, as provided by the law. 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.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.  