Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-07-25
V. Howa.d Z Arnold.


This ia q bill in which complainant seeks to re
deem tract Of land upon the ground that he made
valid tender of sum sufficient for that purpose,
or if not, that what took place between him
and the purchaser, excused hm IRON any
further effort to redeem, and clothed him with
the eouitsbIe title We have not been able to
rive at the conclusion that he Is entitled to so re-
deem and think the ChancellOr's decree dlsm;ssl0g
his bill was proper. The right of redemption Is
one of strict law and if the statutes authorizing It
be not complied with nothing is acquired, and the
estate remains with the purchaser. In order to
support the averment of tender of money 1t Is
necessary for the party to show, that the precise
sum. or more was actually produced and offered to
him to whom it is to be paid. Greenleat EV., Sec
COL II must be in sight and capable of immediate
delivery to show that if the purchasers were will
ling to accept it, it was ready to be PAID II II De
in bags held under the party's arm, and not laid
on the table or otherwise actually offered to the
party entitled to receive it, it IS not sufficient
Greenleaf Ev. COZ. -
The production of the money is dispensed with, if
the party is ready and willing to pay the sum, and
ia about to produce it but is prevented by the party
to whom it is to be paid declaring that he will not
receive it. But his bare refusal to receive the sum
propOsed and demanding more Is not alone Sufficient
10 excuse an actual tender. The money must be
actually at hand and ready to be produced lmmedl
ately if it should be accepted; as, Tor example, II
it be in the next room, or up STAIRS Tor II II De
mile of, and can be borrowed and produced IN nye
drawn it is not sufficient. Greenleaf Ey sec.
COS: Hum. 400.
Now, testing the case by these principles, we do
not find the requisite facts to enable US to pro-
nounce a decree tor complainant. The answers
nnstiveIv DENY the tender and other matter set up
in the bill for relief and the proof we think, IS
insufficient to raise the equity claimed 1t IS not
Dreteuded that what took place between complain
ant and defendant HOTard-the purchaser when
complainant asked him if he would allow him to
RAJ nd 10 81
he would not-can be of any avail to complainant,
since we do not understand that he then had any
money of any kind or intended that as an attempt
at redemption.
We take it as proved that Howard thGn told com
nlainant he might redeem with South Carolina bank
notes but in the subsequent interview between the
partes on the same day, and which Is the one re-
lied on to raise the equity, we are not able from
snv thing in this record satisfactorily to say that
compIainant had a sum sufficient to redeem either
in South Carolina or other money. he, to be sure,
declared he had the South Carolina money, and
wanted to redeem, but sum was stated, or money
shown or produced and if the money which NC
Camnbeu saw him have On that day. and on the next
| dsv he borrowed from him, be taken as the true
amount which he had at the time of the lnteryew ",
il was wholly insufficient. The bid of Howard. the
nurchaser, was S4O3 so. Complainant, at the first
interview had no South Carolina money, for so he
| declared and had TO go and get it else where Nc
CamnbelI cannot state the precise sum ne saw him
L
been two or three hundred dollars, or may not have
/ baen more than one hundred and thirty. Such par
tcular proof as this and that furnished too. on the
part of complainant, showing the nsuihclency oil ms
snm il calculated prmd fdeid, to repel the contra
nv presumption, if any there be, arising from ms
declaration to Howard that he had the South Caro-
Ina money.
IL was very easy for him, if he really had the ne
eessary amount to produce and prove III and the
obscurity in which he involves his case leads rs 70
distrust his entire claim IL Is true, as we think
that Howard had no right to impose upon him the
! condition of paying the mortgage debt to Arnold
which had been assigned to Inland that the exac
/ tion of this sum was so much over and ABOVE VIVA
he had right TO demand. But as we have seen
This aid not excuse an actual tender, and certainly
does not dispense with the necessity OF proof on
the mart of complainant that he actually had the re
! onisite amount of money at hand and ready TO b
| 11roduced in order 10 accomplish the redemption
Though we are satisfied from the proof that HOW
ard. in the interview last above stated, told com
nlainsnt that Arnold had redeemed. or put his mort
gage debt upon the land, and that II he redeemed
him he must not only pay his bid but also the DEP
70 Arnold; yet wedo tUnderztsn that ether HoW
! ard or complainant regarded Arnold as the prope
| person of whom he was 70 redeem. and on that &C
count he declined to have iurther action with How
| ard on the subject Arnold had just before assigh
ed his debt TO Howard with the understanding ina
whoever came to re1eem the land should be re
ouired by Howord to pay both his and Arnold
debt-which being so collected by the former shoul
/ he paid over to the latter-who then agreed tns
} he would, atsOme future day, redeem the lana