PAIGB «?. SMITH. Sit �snccesBors in interest, by virtue of an alleged redemption from the foreclosure sale under the "Marcy" mortgage, and also through conveyanees and asBignments under a sale of tte property to satiefy mechanics' liens. If Cummins- redeemed from the sale under the Marcy" mortgage in time, the de- fendant 18 entitled to judgment. On the first trial the evi- dence sho-wed that Cummins, before the time for redemption expired, tendered to the sheriff a portion only of the bid made by the purchaser, and received a certificate of redemption of a certain part of the property, and, on the day after the time for redemption expired, he received a certificate of redemp- tion for the remaining portion of the property sold on pay- ment of the balance of the bid. �The decision on the first trial upon this state of facts was controUed by the foUowing propositions : �First. The redemption must be made by payment of the Bum for -which the property was sold. The whole debt must: be paid, and the redemptioner then stands in the place of the party -whose interest in the property he discharges. �Second. A co-tenant of an equity of redemption bas no right to compel the mortgagee, or a purchaser of the prop- erty at the sale, -whose rights are the same as the mortgagee, to release such part of the mortgage title as is proportionate to his çhare in the equity of redemption on being paid a cor- responding part of the mortgage debt. The mortgagee is nôt obliged to accept payment of anything less than the whoie debt, nor is the purchaser at the foreclosure sale obliged to accept less than the •whole of the purchase money and become a co-tenant in the property with a redemptioner. �On the second trial the defendant proved that the v^hole amount of the bid at the foreclosure sale was paid the sheriff previous to the day when the time for redemption expired, and that a certificate of redemption covering the whole prop- erty was executed and delivered by the sheriff to Cummins, and that there was a single payment for the entire redemption at that time. This certificate, the evidence shows, was sub- sequently retured to the sheriff, and other certiflcates of dif- ferent dates, covering distinct portions of themortgaged prop- ����
