in Erving v. Cook, 85 Tenn. 332, 4 Am. St. Rep. 765, Lurton, J., said: "The right of a judgment debtor to redeem his lands sold under execution is not an equitable right at all. It is the creature of statute, and depends on statute law, and in no sense a right either created or regulated by principles of equity. The right of redemption given by statute, both to the judgment debtor and judgment creditors, is a legal and not an equitable right. Strictly speaking, there is no estate in the judgment debtor after sale and conveyance of his land under judgment sale. Nothing remains to the debtor, after ex. ecution sale and sheriff's deed, save a statutory right of redemption. This right of redemption has sometimes been spoken of as an equitable right, and his interest in the land subject to redemption as an equitable estate. This terminology springs from the supposed analogy between the statutory right of redemption and the equity of redemption of a mortgagor. But whatever may be the technical character of the interest springing from the right of redemption given to a judgment debtor whose lands have been sold under execution, it is not one which may be reached and subjected to sale by a creditor who is in condition to redeem as provided by statute." The stat utes of the different states which provide who may redeem property sold under execution differ more or less from one another, but they generally confer the right to redeem upon three classes of persons: 1. The defendant in execution, and his successors in interest; 2. Creditors having liens by judgment; 3. Creditors having liens by mortgage: 2 Freeman on Executions, 2d ed., sec. 317.

A defendant in execution may, in most of the states, redeem from an execution sale, notwithstanding the fact that he has conveyed to another the property sold under execution: Yoakum v. Bower, 51 Cal. 539; Livingston v. Arnoux, 56 N. Y. 507; Jones v. Planters' Bank, 5 Humph. 619; 42 Am. Dec. 471; Harvey v. Spaulding, 16 Iowa, 397; 85 Am. Dec. 526. In the case of Yoakum v. Bower, 51 Cal. 540, the court said: "There is no good reason why the statute, which is remedial in its character, should receive a narrow construction, in order to defeat the right of redemption which it intended to give. It might be that the judgment debtor has covenanted with his suc cessor in interest to effect a redemption from the sale; and a variety of other cases might readily be imagined in which the judgment debtor, even though he had sold the property, would still have an interest in effecting a redemption from the execution sale." And the defendant may redeem even after he has been compelled to transfer all his assets to a receiver: 2 Freeman on Executions, sec. 317; Elsworth v. Muldoon, 46 How. Pr. 246; Livingston v. Arnoux, 56 N. Y. 507. A judgment debtor whose lands have been Bold under execution may redeem them from the purchaser without paying the amount of a prior judgment against him held by a partnership of which the purchaser is a member: Campbell v. Oaks, 68 Cal. 222. But if the execu. tion debtor, through his culpable negligence or ignorance of law, fails to redeem within the time limited by statute, he is not entitled to any relief in equity: Smith v. Randall, 6 Cal. 47; 65 Am. Dec. 475; Campau v. Godfrey, 18 Mich. 27; 100 Am. Dec. 133.

Any person to whom the judgment debtor conveys or assigns the property has the same right to redeem that the debtor himself has: Stoddard v. Forbes, 13 Iowa, 296; Harvey v. Spaulding, 16 Iowa, 397; 85 Am. Dec. 526; Thayer v. Coldren, 57 Iowa, 110; Watson v. Hannum, 10 Smedes & M. 521; Jones v. Planters' Bank, 5 Humph. 619; 42 Am. Dec. 471. But the assignment by the execution defendant of his right to redeem confers upon the assignee no higher right than the assignor himself possessed, and a redemption by such

assignee leaves the property subject to be taken in satisfaction of any subsisting lien thereon, to the same extent that it might be taken if in the hands of the execution defendant: Stein v. Chambless, 18 Iowa, 474; 87 Am. Dec. 411; Curtis v. Millard, 14 Iowa, 128; 81 Am. Dec. 460. The trustees of an abBent debtor may redeem from an execution sale against him; but a stranger is not entitled to redeem: Phyfe v. Riley, 15 Wend. 248; 30 Am. Dec. 55. General creditors who have not reduced their claims to judgment and who have no lien on the property are not entitled to redeem from an execution sale: 2 Freeman on Executions, sec. 317; Thomason v. Scales, 12 Ala. 309; Woods v. McGavock, 10 Yerg. 133; Hopkins v. Webb, 9 Humph. 519.

The owner of a judgment, whether he is the plaintiff in whose favor it was rendered or his assignee, has the right to redeem: Couthnay v. Berghaus, 25 Ala. 393; Sweezy v. Chandler, 11 Ill. 445; Martin v. Judd, 60 Ill. 78; Arnold v. Gifford, 62 Ill. 250; Seevers v. Wood, 12 Iowa, 295; Van Rensselaer v. Sheriff, 1 Cow. 443; Snyder v. Warren, 2 Cow. 518; 14 Am. Dec. 519; Ex parte Newell, 4 Hill, 608; Ex parte Raymond, 1 Denio, 272; Beekman v. Bunn, Hill & D. 265; Aylesworth v. Brown, 10 Barb. 167. A judgment creditor cannot redeem from his own sale: 2 Freeman on Executions, sec. 317; Clayton v. Ellis, 50 Iowa, 590; Hayden v. Smith, 58 Iowa, 285; Ex parte Paddock, 4 Hill, 544; Ex parte Stevens, 4 Cow. 133; Russell v. Allen, 10 Paige, 249; People v. Easton, 2 Wend. 297. And this rule is applied where the plaintiffs and others obtain a decree subjecting certain property to the payment of their judgments in the order of their priority, and one execution issues in the name of all, and the execution sale is for the benefit of all, but the proceeds are exhausted in paying prior judgments: Hayden v. Smith, 58 Iowa, 285. A judgment creditor may redeem notwithstanding he may have other adequate securities for the protection of his debt: Fletcher v. Holmes, 25 Ind. 458; Muir v. Leitch, 7 Barb. 341.

WHO MAY REDEEM FROM FORECLOSURE SALE. - Generally speaking, any party who has an interest in the property sold under foreclosure proceedings may redeem from the sale. But to sustain a bill to redeem, the plaintiff must have the mortgagor's title, or some subsisting interest under it: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1055; Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co., 64 Ala. 330; Butts v. Broughton, 72 Ala. 294; Powers v. Golden Lumber Co., 43 Mich. 468; Boar man v. Catlett, 13 Smedes & M. 149; Grant v. Duane, 9 Johns. 59; Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 44 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 116; Lomax v. Bird, 1 Vern. 182. He need not, however, be interested in the whole of the premises sold, nor is it necessary that he should have a title in fee in the premises, in order to entitle him to redeem. If he is in privity in title with the mortgagor, and has such an interest that he would be a loser by the foreclosure, he may redeem: Pearce v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. App. Cas. 227; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark. 112; Platt v. Squire, 12 Met. 494; Farnham v. Metcalf, 8 Cush. 46; Smith v. Austin, 9 Mich. 465; Boarman v. Catlett, 21 Miss. 149; Brewer v. Hyndman, 18 N. H. 9; Moore v. Beasom, 44 N. H. 215; Boqut v. Coburn, 27 Barb. 230; In re Willard, 5 Wend. 94; Purvis v. Brown, 4 Ired. Eq. 413; Selwood v. Gray, 11 Or. 534. In delivering the opinion of the court in Smith v. Austin, 9 Mich. 474, Christiancy, J., said: “But the interest required as the basis of a right to redeem need not be the fee subject to the mortgage, or the whole of the mortgagor's original equity of redemption (except in some cases of a statute redemption thus limited). Any person who may have acquired any interest in the premises, legal or equitable, by operation of law or otherwise, in privity of title with the mortgagor, may redeem, and protect such interest in the land: Story's Eq. Jur., sec. 1023. But it must be an interest

in the land, and it must be derived in some way, mediate or immediate, from, or through, or in the right of the mortgagor, so as, in effect, to constitute a part of the mortgagor's original equity of redemption. Otherwise it cannot be affected by the mortgage, and needs no redemption." But the right to redeem exists only in favor of one who has such an interest that the right to redeem is necessary to its protection: Buser v. Shepard, 107 Ind. 417. In general, only the mortgagor and those holding the legal title under him can redeem; an equitable title does not give the right, and therefore the holder of a bond for a deed from the mortgagor cannot maintain a bill to redeem: McDougald v. Capron, 7 Gray, 278; Grant v. Duane, 9 Johns. 591; Lomax v. Bird, 1 Vern. 182; Fray v. Drew, 11 Jur., N. S., 130. A mortgagor who has by a warranty deed conveyed the equity of redemption to a third person cannot maintain a bill to redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1056; True v. Haley, 24 Me. 297; Elder v. True, 32 Me. 104; Phillips v. Leavitt, 54 Me. 405. An equity of redemption cannot be sold on execution to satisfy the debt secured by the mortgage, and if such a sale be made, the mortgagor will still have the power to redeem, just as if no such sale had been made: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1056; Atkins v. Sawyer, 1 Pick. 351; 11 Am. Dec. 188, note 193-198; Washburn v. Goodwin, 17 Pick. 137.

If a second mortgagee forecloses a mortgagor's equity of redemption, the mortgagor cannot redeem from the first mortgage, for his title is wholly extinguished, and vested in the second mortgagee, who alone has the right to redeem from the first mortgage: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1057; Colwell v. Warner, 36 Conn. 224. But if the first mortgagee forecloses the mortgage without making the second mortgagee a party to the suit, the second mortgagee may redeem from the first mortgage, and the mortgagor may, by redeeming from the second mortgage, acquire the right of the second mortgagee to redeem from the first: Goodman v. White, 26 Conn. 317.

The right of a mortgagor to redeem is not affected by the fact that he may have had no title to the mortgaged property: Lorenzana v. Camarillo, 45 Cal. 125. A mortgagor has a right to redeem, where the mortgagee becomes the purchaser under a sale by virtue of a power contained in the mortgage: Benham v. Rowe, 2 Cal. 387; 56 Am. Dec. 342. But the whole amount due upon the mortgage must be paid before the mortgaged property can be redeemed by a mortgagor who is tenant in common with the mortgagee of the mortgaged premises: Merritt v. Hosmer, 11 Gray, 276; 71 Am. Dec. 713. In Massachusetts, where a mortgage of lands contains a power of sale, the mortgagor may, after a breach of the condition of the mortgage, and before a sale of the premises conveyed by it has actually taken place, without a previous tender, bring a bill in equity to redeem, on offering in the bill to pay the amount due: Way v. Mullett, 143 Mass. 49.

The grantee of the equity of redemption has the same right to redeem as the mortgagor himself had: Bradley v. Snyder, 14 Ill. 263; 58 Am. Dec. 564; Stockell v. Taylor, 3 Md. Ch. 537; Frische v. Kramer's Lessee, 16 Ohio, 125; 47 Am. Dec. 368. And where, upon a foreclosure of a mortgage, the mortgagee purchases the land for a sum less than the amount of the judgment, and dockets a judgment for the deficiency, the purchaser from the mortgagor of the land, pending the time for redemption, is entitled as successor in interest to redeem from the mortgagee, without paying the amount of the deficncy: Simpson v. Castle, 52 Cal. 644. And the purchaser of the equity of redemption sold under execution has the right to redeem: Watson v. Steele, 78 Ala. 361; Julian v. Bell, 26 Ind. 220; 89 Am. Dec. 460; Coombs v. Carr, 65 Ind. 303; Wellington v. Gale, 13 Mass. 483; Atkins v. Sawyer, 1 Pick. 351;

11 Am. Dec. 188; Raymond v. Holborn, 23 Wis. 57; 99 Am. Dec. 105; 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1069.

So, also, is an assignee of the equity of redemption entitled to redeem: Thorne v. Thorne, 1 Vern. 182; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark. 112; Barnard v. Cushman, 35 Ill. 451; Rogers v. Meyers, 68 Ill. 92; Banks v. McClellan, 24 Md. 62; 87 Am. Dec. 594; White v. Bond, 16 Mass. 400; Hepburn v. Kerr, 9 Humph. 726; 51 Am. Dec. 685; Lloyd v. Hoo Sue, 5 Saw. 74. Where a mortgagee assigns his mortgage as security for the payment of a debt due from him to the assignce, the assignment is in effect a mortgage of the mortgage; and if the assignee forecloses the mortgage and buys in the mortgaged premises, the assignor is entitled to redeem from him: Slee v. Manhattan Co., 1 Paige, 48; Hoyt v. Martense, 16 N. Y. 231; Winterbottom v. Tayloe, 2 Drew. 279. So, too, an attaching creditor has the right to redeem: Town of Bridgeport v. Blinn, 43 Conn. 274; Briggs v. Davis, 108 Mass. 322; Chandler v. Dyer, 37 Vt. 345. A judgment creditor of the mortgagor has the right to redeem without having had an execution issued or the land sold. But a general creditor whose claim has not been reduced to judgment and made a lien on the mortgaged premises cannot redeem: Mildred v. Austin, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 220; Connecticut M. L. 1. Co. v. Crawford, 21 Fed. Rep. 281; Cramer v. Watson, 73 Ala. 127; Seals v. Pheiffer, 77 Ala. 278; Fitch v. Wetherbee, 110 Ill. 475; Hitt v. Holliday, 2 Litt. 332; White v. Bond, 16 Mass. 400; Mallalieu v. Wickham, 42 N. J. Eq. 297; Benedict v. Gilman, 4 Paige, 58; Van Buren v. Olmstead, 5 Paige, 9; Dauchy v. Bennett, 7 How. Pr. 375; Bank of Niagara v. Rosevelt, 9 Cow. 409; Brainard v. Cooper, 10 N. Y. 356; Stainback v. Geddy, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 479; 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1069.

A junior mortgagee has the right to redeem from a sale made under a senior mortgage: Wiley v. Ewing, 47 Ala. 418; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark. 112; Frink v. Murphy, 21 Cal. 108; 81 Am. Dec. 149; Morse v. Smith, 83 Ill. 396; Rogers v. Herron, 92 Ill. 583; Hervey v. Krost, 116 Ind. 268; Gaskell v. Viquesney, 122 Ind. 244; 17 Am. St. Rep. 364; Crossen v. White, 19 Iowa, 109; 87 Am. Dec. 420; Manning v. Markel, 19 Iowa, 103; Anson v. Anson, 20 Iowa, 55; 89 Am Dec. 514; Gower v. Winchester, 33 Iowa, 303; American Buttonhole etc. Co. v. Burlington L. L. Ass'n, 61 Iowa, 464; Bunce v. West, 62 Iowa, 80; Spurgin v. Adamson, 62 Iowa, 661; Dickerman v. Lust, 66 Iowa, 444; Bigelow v. Willson, 1 Pick. 485; Kimmell v. Willard, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 217; Sager v. Tupper, 35 Mich. 134; Lamb v. Jeffrey, 41 Mich. 719; Hill v. White, 1 N. J. Eq. 435; Haines v. Beach, 3 Johns. Ch. 459; Pardee v. Van Auken, 3 Barb. 534; Jen. kins v. Continental Ins. Co., 12 How. Pr. 66; Ellsworth v. Lockwood, 42 N. Y. 89; Frost v. Yonkers S. Bank, 70 N. Y. 553; 26 Am. Rep. 627; 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1064.

A grantor by an absolute deed which is in fact a mortgage has the same right to redeem as a mortgagor in a formal mortgage would have, so long as the grantee retains the property: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1060; Eiseman ▼. Gallagher, 24 Neb. 79; Vanderhaise v. Hugues, 13 N. J. Eq. 410; Whittick v. Kane, 1 Paige, 202; Meehan v. Forrester, 52 N. Y. 277; Ballard v. Jones, 6 Humph. 455; Still v. Buzzell, 60 Vt. 478. But a purchaser at an execution sale, seeking to redeem from a trust deed which is a prior lien, cannot ask for relief from a penalty provided by such trust deed: Blair v. Chamberlin, 39 Ill. 521; 89 Am. Dec. 322. A conveyance by a debtor, in trust, to secure his debt is to be considered as a mortgage from which he has a right to redeem: Chowning v. Cox, 1 Rand. 306; 10 Am. Dec. 530; Pennington v. Hanby, 4 Munf. 140. If a grantee in a deed absolute in form, but really a mortgage, conveys to a bona fide purchaser, he must make good the loss to the grantor by reason

of his loss of his right to redeem his land: Meehan v. Forrester, 52 N. Y. 277; Whittick v. Kane, 1 Paige, 202.

A tenant in common or owner of an undivided interest in an equity of redemption may redeem, but in doing so he must pay the whole amount of the mortgage debt: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1063; Howard v. Harris, 1 Vern. 33; Pearce v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. App. Cas. 227; Eldridge v. Wright, 55 Cal. 531; Seymour v. Davis, 35 Conn. 264; Lyon v. Robbins, 45 Conn. 513; Eiceman v. Finch, 79 Ind. 511; Smith v. Kelley, 27 Me. 237; 46 Am. Dec. 595; Wood v. Goodwin, 49 Me. 260; 77 Am. Dec. 259; Taylor v. Porter, 7 Mass. 355; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146; Merritt v. Hosmer, 11 Gray, 276; 71 Am. Dec. 713; Ex parte Willard, 5 Wend. 94; Boqut v. Coburn, 27 Barb. 230; Hubbard v. Ascutney M. D. Co., 20 Vt. 402; 50 Am. Dec. 41; McLaughlin v. Curtis, 27 Wis. 644.

The heirs or devisees of a deceased mortgagor are entitled to redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1062; Pym v. Boureman, 3 Swanst. 241; Lewis v. Nangle, 2 Ves. Sr. 431; Butts v. Broughton, 72 Ala. 294; Hunter v. Dennis, 112 Ill. 568; Zaegel v. Kuster, 51 Wis. 31; Chew v. Hyman, 10 Biss. 240.

A tenant for life, a tenant in tail, or a remainderman may redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1065; Wicks v. Scrivens, 1 Johns. & H. 215; Evans v. Jones, Kay, 29; Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60; 90 Am. Dec. 177; Lamson v. Drake, 105 Mass. 564.

A tenant for years may also redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1066; Keech v. Hall, 1 Doug. 21; Bacon v. Bowdoin, 22 Pick. 401; Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60; 90 Am. Dec. 177; Hamilton v. Dobbs, 19 N. J. Eq. 227; Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 44. Morse, J., in delivering the opinion of the court in Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 51, said: "The important point of inquiry in this case is, whether a tenant for years has a right to redeem the mortgage of his lessor, made before the lease under which the tenant claims. I understand the law to be as well settled as the reason and justice of the rule is clear, that any one who holds the actual relation of surety for the mortgage debt, charged upon land in which he has an interest, although his liability as such surety extends no further than to lose his interest in the land, has a right to redeem, for the protection of such interest."

A widow who has joined in the mortgage in release of her dower may redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1067; Butts v. Broughton, 72 Ala. 294; Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60; 90 Am. Dec. 177; Lamb v. Montague, 112 Mass. 352; Opdyke v. Bartles, 11 N. J. Eq. 133; McArthur v. Franklin, 16 Ohio St. 193; Trenholm v. Wilson, 13 S. C. 174; Gatewood v. Gatewood, 75 Va. 407; Posten v. Miller, 60 Wis. 494.

And where a mortgage given by a man and his wife is foreclosed, and she is not made a party, or is not served with process, she may, after a sale of the mortgaged premises, and during the lifetime of her husband, maintain, because of her inchoate right of dower, an action to redeem the mortgaged premises from the sale: Taggart v. Rogers, 49 Hun, 265; Wheeler v. Morris, 2 Bosw. 524; Mills v. Van Voorhis, 20 N. Y. 412.

A surety of a debt secured by a junior mortgage upon payment of the debt is subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee, and may redeem from a prior mortgagee: Green v. Wynn, L. R. 4 Ch. App. Cas. 204; Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 44.

A party cannot redeem from his own sale: McCullough v. Rose, 4 Ill. App. 149; Hervey v. Krost, 116 Ind. 268; Todd v. Davey, 60 Iowa, 532; Lauriat v. Stratton, 6 Saw. 339.

Parties seeking to redeem must comply strictly with the provisions of the