Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-11-30

decree it is stated-ihat at the special
instance and request of the complainant
the said land shall be sold without the
equity of redemption. This we think
was substantial compliance with the
requisites of the exception and that in this
respect the decree was rot erroneous.
The decree next directs the Clerk and
Master to sell the lands on credit of six
months, except as to four hundred dol
lars, which he is directed to require in
cash. Was the order to require four
hundred dollars in cash, such q compliance
with the law as to defeat the debtor of his
right to redeem2 By the letter of the
law, the sale Sof the laDd must be on
credit, otherwise the right of redemption
survives. 1t is said that this court, in an
unreported case, held that the require
ment of 800 in cash. TO pay costs, was
not such a sum as would open the right
of redemption. Without having seen the
case, we presume there was enough in the
record to satisfy the court, that the sale
was substantially in compliance with the
law, and that the debtor had no reasona-
BILE cause of complaint.
We are not prepared TO hold that, where
both parties have been represented in the
court below, and when it may be fairly
inferred, either that the decree was as
sented to by the debtors counsel, or that
the amount of cash sale did not probably
diminish the aggregate amount of the
bidding, such sale was not substantially
in conformity to the acquisitions of the
law. When the Chancellor can see, either
from his knowledge of the facts contained
in the record, or by the admission of
counsel representing the owner of the
land to be sold, that the requiring of an
amount in cash, sufficient to cover cost
and counsel fees, win not interfere with
the obtaining of full and fair price for
the land, we should consider it sticking in
the bark to hold such sale was not, in sub
stance, sale on credit. But, the record
here, presents a very different siatessof
facts. The land is shown, by one wit
ness, to have been worth So, 900, and by
another, $4,000; the Clerk and Masters
estimate was, that it was worth So, 500.
Upon q credit of six months, $400 being
required in cash, it brought 81, 500. The
defendant was nonresident, and not
represented by counsel. Under such cir
cumstances, we are so far from being
satisfied that full and fair price was OBJ
tanned, we are strongly impressed with
the belief the land was sold at sacrifice,
aid we cannot see, but that the amount
of the cash required, may have contribu-
ted to the sacrifice. B sides, we can see
no apparent necessity for requiring such
amount in cssh, nor for limiting the
credit to so short time as six months.
Both the letter and the spirit of the law
were violated.
So much of the decree, therefore, as
directed the land to be sold without the
equity of redemption, was erroneous and
the right to redeem or repurchase, was
not thereby cut off and destroyed. To
this ex ent, the decree is reversed, and,
IN all other respects it is affirmed.
Our attention has been called to section
9,1S6, of the Code, which provides that
the right, title and interest of any such
purchaser, acquired urder the judgment
or decree, before the writ of error ard SUI
per:edeas was granted, shall not be dis
turbed or affected by the reversal of such
decree. Whether our reversal of the de-
cree shall, in any way, disturb or affect
the right, title and interest of the pur-
chaser of the land, is not question for
cur adjudication, on this record. The
defendant has right to have the errors
in the decree revised, but whether their
revisal will avail him anything, is in no
way involved in our inquiries.
The decree will be reversed, as herein
indicated, but as our action here renders
no further proceedings necessary, in the
court below, the cause will not be re-
m1nded. The costs of this writ of error
will be paid by the complainant.
NICHOLSON, c. ].
A true copy.
Test: J. +. Deaderick, Clerk.