copy of the judgment was delivered to the sheriff after the time to redeem had expired, and the purchaser had, before receiving the redemption-money from the sheriff, been given to understand that it was produced in due season. Ct. of Errors, 1838, Waller v. Harris, 20 Wend., 555; affirming S. C., 7 Paige, 167. 510. The sheriff has no power to convey, without the verification required by statute. It is an essential part of the evidence of right, and nothing else can be substituted for it by the redeeming creditor. [7 Paige, 167; 20 Wend., 555; 18 Id., 598; 19 Id., 86; 7 Hill, 177; Id., 159; 2 Comst., 484.] Supreme Ct., 1858, Hall v. Thomas, 27 Barb., 55. 511. When to be produced. The papers of a mortgagee or judgment-creditor, showing his title to redeem, including the affidavit of the amount due, may be furnished to the sheriff within the year after the sale. Supreme Ct., 1841, People v. Ransom, 2 Hill, 51. Followed, 1843, Exp. Newell, 4 Id., 608.

512. Docket. Where the judginent was recovered in one county, and has become a lien upon the premises by being docketed in another, producing a copy of the docket in the latter county is a compliance with the statute. Supreme Ct., 1848, Woolsey v. Saunders, 3 Barb., 301.

513. Original assignment. Though the statute requires a copy of the assignment of a judgment to be furnished by the assignee, the original, if properly verified, might be deemed sufficient; but an acknowledgment of it, by the assignor, as though it were a conveyance of land, is not a proper verification. Supreme Ct., 1843, Exp. Newell, 4 Hill, 608; and see Hall v. Thomas, 27 Barb., 55.

514. Form of assignment. An assignment of a judgment, giving the title of the suit, and transferring the judgment to the creditor, but without particularly describing the judgment, as to amount, or the time when, or the court in which, it was recovered,-Held, sufficient. Ct. of Appeals, 1849, People v. Fleming, 2 N. Y. (2 Comst.), 484; affirming S. O., 4 Den., 137.

515. Since it is not necessary that an assignment of a judgment should state when it

516. Nor does a mistake in inserting an initial of a middle name in the name of a party, affect its sufficiency. Ib.

517. A certified copy of the mortgage is sufficient, though the clerk's certificate be not dated, nor sealed. Supreme Ct., 1841, People v. Ransom, 2 Hill, 51; and see People v. Fleming, 4 Den., 145; affirmed, 2 N. Y. (2 Comst.), 490.

518. In an affidavit of the amount due, a statement that the deponent is "the assignee and owner in good faith of the judgment," without any allegation of the execution and authenticity of the papers, is not a sufficient verification; but the words, "that this deponent is the assignee and owner according to the annexed copies of the transfer by, &c., in good faith of the said judgment," is sufficient. Supreme Ct., 1843, Exp. Newell, 4 Hill, 608.

519. Where the judgment was assigned by R., the plaintiff, to G., and by G. to C., the redeeming creditor; C.'s affidavit, after setting out both assignments at length, stated that "the foregoing assignments are true and correct copies of the original assignments of R. and G. ;"-Held, a compliance with the statute. [4 Hill, 612.]

So held, also, of an affidavit giving literal copies of the two assignments, and stating in reference to the first, “the following is a true and correct copy of the original assignment of R. to G.," and, in reference to the other, that "said G. sold and assigned said judgment to this deponent, and the following is a true and correct copy of said original assignment." Supreme Ct., Sp. T., 1850, Aylesworth v. Brown, 10 Barb., 167.

520. The affidavit of the amount due should be positive, not upon belief merely. Supreme Ct., 1845, Exp. Bank of Monroe, 7 Hill, 177.

521. Error in amount. An affidavit of the amount due upon the judgment, made in good faith, and in proper form, is sufficient to authorize a redemption. If the amount is innocently overstated, the lien is still good. Supreme Ct., 1849, Muir v. Leitch, 7 Barb., 341. As to form of an affidavit by Agent or Attorney, see AFFIDAVIT, 77, 78.,

to be verified by the affidavit of the assignee, or "some witness to the assignment," the witness must be a subscribing witness. Supreme Ct., 1845, Erp. Aldrich, 1 Den., 662. 523. An affidavit of a third person, stating that the copy assignment was a true one, and that the assignment was executed in the presence of the subscribing witnesses, without disclosing how deponent knew the fact, or stating that he was present at the execution, is insufficient. Ib.

524. Where there is no subscribing witness to the assignment, it may be verified by the affidavit of any person who saw it executed and delivered. Ct. of Appeals, 1849, People ⚫. Fleming, 2 N. Y. (2 Comst.), 484.

525. Administrator. The statute specifying both assignees and representatives (§ 50) intends a distinction between them, meaning by the former only assignees by deed, not those by operation of law. It is enough for an administrator to produce his affidavit without his letters. Ib.

526. Unverified assignment. Where the creditor presented no other evidence of his title to the judgment under which he claimed the right to redeem, than his own affidavit that he was owner and assignee, and a paper purporting to be an assignment thereof, but which was not verified, and not in his own affidavit identified as the instrument under which he claimed;

Held, not sufficient. The statute contemplates the exhibition of the evidence of the claimant's right, under the sanction of his oath, or the oath of some subscribing witness, so that the purchaser or officer may see from the papers presented and verified, that the right and claim are well founded. Supreme Ct., 1858, Hall v. Thomas, 27 Barb., 55.

529. Where a junior judgment-creditor paid the purchaser's bid and interest, and the production of the papers required by statute being waived by him, they were not produced, and a younger judgment-creditor paid the sheriff the bid and interest, and produced proper papers;-Held, that the latter was entitled to the deed. Ib.; affirming S. C., 4 Den., 145.

530. The papers should be left with the party to whom the money is paid. Making payment to the original purchaser, and subsequently leaving the paper evidences of the right to redeem with the sheriff, is irregular. Ib.

531. A second or subsequent creditor, who redeems after a redemption already made, must present the evidences of his right to redeem and make payment of the moneys necessary to be paid to the last redeemingcreditor, or to the officer who made the sale; payment to the original purchaser in such case is not sufficient. Supreme Ct., 1839, People v. Baker, 20 Wend., 602.

D. Payment of Sums required.

532. Prior creditor redeeming from junior. Where a junior judgment-creditor has redeemed, a prior judgment-creditor, coming to redeem from him, need not pay the junior judgment under which redemption has been made. Supreme Ct., 1823, Rosekrans v. Hughson, 1 Cow., 428.

533. If a junior creditor has redeemed, a senior creditor who had taken a transfer of the certificate of sale, upon presenting it and proper proof of his judgment, need not pay the original purchase-money to the sheriff. Supreme Ct., 1843, Exp. Newell, 4 Hill, 608; 1845, People v. Muzzy, 1 Den., 289; S. P., 1841, People v. Ransom, 2 Hill, 51.

91.

may be made either to the sheriff, or to the deputy who made the sale; and payment to such deputy is good, though the term of office of his principal has expired. Supreme Ct., 1839, People v. Baker, 20 Wend., 602; and see 2 Rev. Stat., 374, § 65.

536. Last day. Redemptions on and after the last day of the 15 months-where and how to be made. Laws of 1847, 508, ch. 410, §§ 3-8.

537. C. being entitled, by virtue of a judgment, to redeem certain premises from the purchaser at a sheriff's sale, went to the sheriff's office, which was also the office of the county clerk, on the evening of the last day on which she could redeem, and the sheriff and his officers being absent, attempted to effect the redemption by payment to the county clerk, who received the money for that purpose. G., the purchaser, within 24 hours thereafter, took the money from the county clerk, and immediately repaid it, with a view of redeeming from the judgment of C. Held, 1. That C.'s attempt to redeem, in the absence of the sheriff and his officers, was ineffectual. 2. That the act of G., in availing himself of the money paid by C. to the county clerk, was not a waiver of the objection that the county clerk had not power to receive the money. Ct. of Appeals, 1857, People v. Rathbun, 15 N. Y. (1 Smith), 528; affirming S. C., sub nom. Griffin v. Chase, 23 Barb., 278.

538. A redemption of land from a sale upon execution, cannot be made by calling at the office of the county clerk, the same being the office of the sheriff, and paying the amount and presenting the papers to the clerk for the sheriff, neither the sheriff nor any of his deputies being present, and the clerk having no special authority from the sheriff. Supreme Ct., 1856, Griffin v. Chase, 23 Barb., 278; affirmed, sub nom. People v. Rathbun, 15 N. Y. (1 Smith), 528.

539. Officer's agent. The officer who sold the land has a right to appoint a person his agent, to compute and receive the amount required on redemption. Supreme Ct., Sp. T., 1849, Hall v. Fisher, 9 Barb., 17; and see Hall v. Fisher, 1 Barb. Ch., 53; compare People v. Rathbun, 15 N. Y. (1 Smith), 528.

540. Checks. Payment by a check on a bank is not good, unless it be presented and paid before the expiration of the time for redeeming. Supreme Ct., 1839, People v. Baker, 20 Wend., 602.

541. Bills. The sheriff may receive payment in good bank-bills. Supreme Ct., Sp. T., 1849, Hall v. Fisher, 9 Barb., 17.

542. Securities. Redemption may be made by the transfer of property or securities, other than money, which the purchaser agrees to receive. Supreme Ct., 1846, Stone v. Smith, 2 How. Pr., 117.

543. Deficiency. A short payment to the sheriff, though by his mistake, does not effect redemption. Supreme Ct., 1823, Dickenson v. Gilliland, 1 Cow., 481; Exp. Peru Iron Co., 7 Cow., 540.

544. If a short payment was exclusively the conséquence of a miscalculation of the sheriff's special agent, it does not vitiate the redemption. Supreme Ct., Sp. T., 1849, Hall v. Fisher, 9 Barb., 17. To similar effect, 1 Barb. Ch., 53; 3 Id., 639.

545. Where the wrong computation is made by the party himself, or his agent, and full payment is not made, there is no valid redemption. Chancery, 1845, Hall v. Fisher, 1 Barb. Ch., 53.

546. A deficiency of thirty cents in the payment may be disregarded in equity, and the redemption sustained. Supreme Ct., Sp. T., 1849, Hall v. Fisher, 9 Barb., 17.

547. Foreign coin. If the sheriff accept sovereigns and foreign coins, which are not legal tender, but are current, and take them at their current value, the redemption is a good one, although the current value is a trifle more than the legal value. Supreme Ct., 1843, Exp. Becker, 4 Hill, 613.

One who,

548. Subsequent payment. through mistake as to the sum required, paid the sheriff only a part of the sum necessary to redeem, cannot acquire any right by paying the deficiency and obtaining a deed, after that time. The fact that the prior creditor was present, and declined to advise him as to the amount, cannot affect the title of such creditor. Supreme Ct., 1845, Exp. Raymond, 1 Den., 272.

549. A tender to the sheriff of the amount of an execution is not of itself a discharge of the judgment lien, so as to prevent a redemption thereon. Supreme Ct., 1825, Jackson v. Law,* 5 Cow., 248; Sp. T., 1847, People v. Beebe, 1 Barb., 379; and see Exp. Peru Iron Co., 7 Cow., 540.

* Affirmed, 9 Cow., 641, but no opinion reported.

E. Effect of Redeeming.

550. Sale avoided. On a redemption by the debtor, his grantees, &c., within the year, the certificate of sale becomes void, and a deed subsequently executed by the sheriff is inoperative. Supreme Ct., 1886, Phyfe v. Riley, 15 Wend., 248.

551 A creditor, by redeeming, takes the place of the purchaser, and his judgment is not satisfied; but he is bound to extinguish intermediate liens. Supreme Ot., 1838, Emmet v. Bradstreet, 20 Wend., 50.

552. The judgment of a junior judgmentcreditor is not discharged at law, nor in equity, by his redeeming premises sold under a prior judgment. Chancery, 1840, Van Horne . McLaren, 8 Paige, 285; and see Emmet v. Bradstreet, 20 Wend., 50.

553. Reclaiming the money. A creditor paid the redemption-money unconditionally to the sheriff, and subsequently stayed it in the sheriff's hands by an injunction;-Held, that he did not thereby impair his rights as a redeeming creditor. Supreme Ct., 1843, Exp. Newell, 4 Hill, 589.

acquired, by the certificate of sale, only a lien, which was extinguishable by redemption. If, at the expiration of fifteen months, the sale had been consummated by the usual conveyance, the lien, not only of the judgment of K., but of all junior judgments, would have been forever gone. But the sale of itself did not extinguish the lien of junior judgments on which the sale did not take place; nor did it divest the debtor's title. But though the debtor did not actually redeem, yet the redemption made by M. out of the surplus, was virtually a redemption by the debtor, and should have the same effect [15 Wend., 248]; no distinct affirmative act of the debtor was necessary. The sheriff's sale to K. was thereby vacated. [2 Rev. Stat., 370, §§ 45, 46, 49, 51, 61; 1 Cow., 501, 444; 2 Id., 518; 7 Id., 540; 20 Johns., 3; 15 Wend., 248; 4 Barb., 159.] The junior judgment-creditors thereupon became entitled to the remaining surplus, in the order of their liens; and M., holding the first of such judgments, was entitled to be paid. The fact that the sale to K. was partly upon his judgment, did not satisfy it, for no moneys applicable to it were raised then. At most, his lien was suspended, and was restored by the sale under the mortgage, and virtual redemption out of the proceeds. Ct. of Ap

555. Preference. As assignee of a sheriff's certificate, a judgment-creditor merely occupies the place of the original purchaser, and gains no preference for his judgment. Supreme Ct., 1847, People v. Ransom, 4 Den., 145; affirmed, 2 N. Y. (2 Comst.), 490.

556. Sale under mortgage. The land of 8., subject to a mortgage held by M., was sold on executions on a judgment in favor of K., and a junior judgment in favor of M.; both judgments being subsequent to the mortgage. On the sale, K. bid in the land for merely the amount of his judgment. Subsequently, and before the debtor's time to redeem expired, M. foreclosed his mortgage under the power of sale, and out of the surplus paid K. the amount necessary to redeem from the execution sale, and also retained the amount of his own junior judgment.

Held, that he was entitled to retain such sum, as against a creditor by a junior judgment, on which there had been no sale. K.

557. Where there were five judgments which were successive liens against the same debtor, and his land was sold under the first, second, and fourth, for a sum sufficient to pay the first two and a part of the fourth, and the respective creditors in the third and fifth judgments, in order to acquire the title of the purchaser, each delivered the proper papers, and each paid the amount of the bid, but neither paid the other's judgment,-Held, that the creditor in the third judgment was entitled to the conveyance. Ot. of Appeals, 1849, People v. Fleming, 2 N. Y. (2 Comst.), 484; affirming S. C., 4 Den., 137.

558. Ejectment. Where premises sold on execution have been redeemed from the purchaser by a junior judgment-creditor, it cannot be shown in an action of ejectment by an assignee for the benefit of creditors of the original owner, that the judgment on which the first judgment-creditor redeemed, was paid before redemption-the owner's right of redemption having expired before that time.