JULY TERM, 1856. GRACIE V. W1HTE. from the date 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 the redemption money, and bring it into court : and pray that the sale to Gracie may be set aside, and his title canceled. 7• The answer of Gracie puts in [*18 issue the title of complainants to the land ; admits his purchase of it at tax sale as charged ; and substantially ad-1711] mits that, on the day stated in the bill, *GRACIE Calvin Stroud tendered him money and V. offered to redeem the land, but denies WHITE & WIFE that he had any competent legal au-It vas . thority to act:for the complainants in not necessary that the power to authorize an agent to pay over mosey for his principal, should the premises,:and on that account the be in writing—as where the owner of land sold for tender was refused. taxes, authorizes an agent to pay the taxes, etc., Upon the hearing, the court decreed and redeem the land. to complainants the relief sought by Appeal from the Desha Circuit Court the bill, and Gracie appealed. in Chancery. The complainants being non-resi THE HON. THEODORIC F. SOB_ dents of the county of Desha when the RELLS, Circuit Judge. land was assessed, and sold for taxes, their right to redeem it, at any time Watkins & Gallagher, Yell and Wil-within twelve months after the sale, by liams & Williams, for the appellant. paying or tendering to Gracie the Pike & Cummins, for the appellees. amount of taxes, penalty, costs, etc., paid by him with 100 per cent. thereon, ENGLISH, C. J. This was a bill filed is not controverted. by White and wife against Gracie to Digest, chap. 139- sec. 122-3-4, redeem a tract of land sold for taxes. p. 890-1. The material allegations of the bill It appears from the testimony read are, that the complainants were the upon the hearing, that the land was owners, by descent from William patented to Wm. Woods and his heirs, Woods, the father of Mrs. White, of the on the 5th day of February, 1846, by north half of see. 9, T. 9, S. R. 1 west, the President of the United States, pre-containing 320 acres aud lying in vious to woich time Woods had died, Desha county. That, on the 3d No-leaving the complainant Mrs. White, vember, 1851, the land was sold by the his only surviving child and heir. sheriff of that county for taxes then The question whether the power of charged upon it, amounting to $154.03, attorney executed by the complainants together with $75, penalty and costs ; to John P. Stroud, authorizing him to and purchased by Gracie. That on the sell the land, was valid and binding on 3d October, 1852, Mrs. White—in other wordi whether and within one year a femme eouverte can execute a valid
VOL. 18 power to dispose of her laud—which has been discussed at length 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 appointed John P. Stroud their agent to redeem the land ; that he substituted Calvin Stroud, and that the substitution was ratified by the complainants before the tender was made to Gracie. The only question really involved in the case, therefore, is whether the tender and offer to redeem the laud, 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 chop..139, see. 122), 191 *but is silent as to how the agency shall be created:—the familiar principles of the common law settle this. What has the agent t o do? He has to execute no instrument, sealed, or otherwise. His duty is merely to pay, or tender the redemption money to the purchaser of the laud: and when the money is received by the purchaser, the land is redeemed by operation of law. The statute requires him to make 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.