OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 17 Term, 1856] Gracie vs, White & wife. CIALVCIE s. WHITE & WIFE. It is not necessary that the power to authorize an agent to pay over money for his principal, should be in writing—as where the owner of land sold foi taxes, authorizes an agent to pay the taxes, etc_, and redeem the land, Appeal flow Desha Conit in Chancery. The Hon. TnEonornei F. SORELLLS, Circuit Judge. Watkins & Gallagher, Yell and lliams & Williams, for t he appellant: Pike & Cummins, for tbe appellees. Mr. Chief Justice ENGLISH delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a bill filed hy White and wife agaMst Gracie to re-ileem a tract of land sold for taxes. The material allegations of the bill are, that the complainants weVe the owners, by descent from William Woods, the th , r of Mrs. White, of the north half of sec. 9. T. 9 S. it, I west, containing 320 acres and lying in Dpsha comity_ That, on the 3d November, 1851, the land was sold by the shenff of that county for ta:es then charged upon it, amounting to $154 03, together with $75, penalty and costs; and purchased by: Gracie. That on the 3d October, 1852, and within one year from the ilate of the sale, the complainants, by their agent, Calvin Stroud, tendered to Gracie the full amount of taxes penalty and costs paid by him for the land with 100 per cent. thereon, for the purpose of redeeming the land, which he refused to accept. The complainants offer to pay tbe redemption money, and bring it into Court: and pray that the sale to Gracie may be set aside, and his title canceled.
18 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT Gracie vs, White & wife: [July The answer of Gracie puts in issue the title I f complainants to the land; admits his puichase of it at tax sale as charged; and substantially admits that, on the day stated in the bill, Cal-vin Stroud tendered him money and offered to redeem the land, but denies that fie had any competent legal authority to act for the complainants in the premises, and on that account the tender was refused. Upon the hearing, the court decreed to complainants au! lief sought hy the bill, and Gracie appealed. The complainants being non-residents of the county of Deslin ‘N hen the land was assessed, and sold for taxes, their right to redeem it, at any time within twelve months after the sale, by paying or tendering to GT:Jew the amount of taxes, penalty, costs, ete_ paid by him with 100 per cent. thereon, is not controverted. Digest chap. 139, see. 122-3-4, pl. 890-1, It appears from the testimony read upon the hearing, that the land was patented to Wm: Woods and his heirs, on the 5th day of Febi oar y, 1846, by the President of the United States, previous to which time Woods had died, leaving the complainant Mrs. White, his only surviving child and heir. The question whether the power of attorney executed by the eomelainants to John.P. Stroud, antliorii!ing him to sell the valid and binding nu Mrs. White,—in other words, wlirther a f!miHrov prt can execute a valid power to dispo,-, I et 1Tel-1d—which has b -cen discussed cit leregth by the counsel of Gracie, does not properly arise in this case, and need not be decided. The testimony conduces to show that complainants verbally a pp ointed John P. Stroud their agent to redeem the land; that fie snbstituted Calvin Stroud, and that the substitution was ratified by the complainants befoie the tender was made to Gracie. The only question really involved in the ease, therefore, is whether the tender and offer to redeem the land made under a verbal appointment, was sufficient; or whether the power had to be in writing The Statute provides that the redemption money may be paid or tendered to the purchaser of the land. by the owner or his agent or attorney, (Digest chap. 139, see.
OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 10 Term, 1856] but is silent as to how the agency shall be created :—the familiar principles of the common law settles this. What has the agent to do ? He has to execute no instrumeut, sealed or otherwise. His duty is merely to pay, or tender the redemption money to the pmeluesei of the land: and when the money is received b y the purchaser, the land is redeemed by operation of law. The statute requires him to ma ke no deed. We know of no principle of law which requires a written power to authorize an agent to pay over money for his principal. The decree of the court below is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.