Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-07-10

which the owner of an integral part
of the land included in the mortgage
was not made party to the fore
closure, was given the option of
compelling the owner of the parcel to
redeem by paying the full debt or
conveying to the subsequent owner
the parcel in question.
In Sellwood v. Gray, supra, Judge
Lord says, referring to the mortga-
gor: His equity of redemption is
the right to redeem from the mort
gage-to pay off the mortgage debt
until this right is barred by decree of
Foreclosures; but until this right is
barred, his estate, in law or equity,
is Just the same after, as 1t was be-
fore default. 1t is right, though, of
which the law takes no cognizance,
and Is enforceable only in equity,
and has nothing to do without stat
ute of redemptions. This is a valua-
BILE right, and exists not only in the
mortgagor himself, but in every 9TH
er person who has anainterest in, or
legal or equitable lien upon, the
mortgaged premises, and includes
judgment creditors, all of whom may
insist upon redemption of the mort
gage"
Conceding, as we must, for the
purposes of this opinion, that the
plaintiff was the residuary devisee
under the Mccullough, will within
the meaning of the excerpt Just
quoted, it had an interest in the
mortgaged premises. Indeed, 1t
stood in the shoes of one o. the mort
gagors, to-wit: its testator. AS such,
it had right to sue for the -edemp-
tiontion of the premises, that right
not having been barred by the fore
closure suit. Considering K even as
a tenant in common, it still had
right to sue for redemption, under
the authority of Merritt v. Hosmer
IL Gray 276; II Am. Dec. 713.
An analysis of the cases quoted
will show that the right of the pur-
chaser at the sale to compel a re-
demption on the one hand, and of
person interested in the premises to
sue for redemption, on the other, do
not depend on the decree of the fore
closure being wholly void as to all
claimants. In all the cases mem
toned the decree was valid as to
some of the defendants in the suit,
but, of course, Intellectual as to par
ties in interest who were not made
defendants.
The right Of a purchaser at such a
sale to compel redemption by strict
foreclosure is a right which is the
complement of the right on the part
of one claiming subsequent inter-
est in the land to bring a suit to re-
deem. The situation is this: The
tenant in common, not being made a
party to the suit to foreclose, finds
some one in possession of the whole
of the land with whom he has no
privity, who is not a tenant in COM
mon under the original holding and
his suit to redeem is an effort to rid
the land of the one who has thus in
truded. The result of his effort If
successful is to terminate the effect
of the sale and restore the estate to
its former owners, for his redemption
inures to their benefit. Dray v. Dray
21 Or. SO. What must he do to eff
feet that purpose? He must do equi-
ty by redeeming the land, and to do
so, in the language of Williams v.
Wilson, AZ Or. 307, he must pay the
: entire mortgage debt and interest un-
| der the equitable rule, and not under
the statute as from sale under the
decree"
All the decisions of this court
| above noted, so far as the sum to be