Durley v. Davis

• Decision Date: 30 September 1873
• Citation: 69 Ill. 133,1873 WL 8422
• Parties: JEFFERSON DURLEYv.ROBERT DAVIS.JEFFERSON DURLEYv.ROBERT DAVIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

69 Ill. 133

1873 WL 8422 (Ill.)

JEFFERSON DURLEY

v.ROBERT DAVIS.JEFFERSON DURLEY

v.ROBERT DAVIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1873.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Putnam county; the Hon. SAMUEL L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding.

This was an application by Robert Davis for a rule upon Jefferson Durley, sheriff of Putnam county, to compel him to execute deeds upon two certificates of purchase. The opinion of the court states the facts.

Messrs. DENT & BLACK, for the appellant.

Messrs. BANGS & SHAW, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

Samuel H. Condit and Pierre Condit were each of them seized of an undivided one-fifth of certain lands in Putnam county. Certain judgments were obtained against them, upon which executions were issued, and levied upon the undivided two--fiths of the lands. A sale was made January 4th, 1871, by the sheriff, and one Bachmen became the purchaser. He subsequently sold his certificate of purchase to appellee.

After the sale, Edward F. Pulsifer recovered a judgment against Samuel H. Condit, and after the expiration of twelve months, the lands not having been redeemed, he sued out an execution upon his judgment and placed it in the hands of the sheriff, and caused it to be levied upon an undivided one-fifth of the lands as the property of Samuel H. Condit, and paid over to the sheriff one-half of the amount for which the undivided two-fifths of the lands had been sold, with interest at ten per cent, as required by the statute. The sheriff issued a certificate of redemption, and advertised and sold the undivided one-fifth of the lands, and Pulsifer became the purchaser, and a deed was made to him by the sheriff. Upon the expiration of fifteen months, appellee applied to the sheriff for a deed for the undivided two-fifths of the lands. The sheriff declined to convey the undivided one-fifth which had been conveyed to Pulsifer.

Appellee then applied to the circuit court of Putnam county for a rule upon the sheriff to convey, and the court granted the rule and rendered judgment against the sheriff for costs, from which judgment Jefferson Durley, the sheriff, appeals to this court.

There is but one question arising upon the record in this case: Can the undivided interest of one of two defendants in execution be redeemed from a sale upon an execution, by depositing with the proper officer a proportion of the redemption money of the entire tract equal to such undivided share?

The answer to this depends upon the construction of our statute, as the right of redemption is purely statutory, and that right must be exercised in the manner required by the statute, otherwise it will be invalid. Littler v. The People, 43 Ill. 190.

The statute declares that the judgment creditor shall pay to the officer into whose hands he shall have placed his execution, the amount of money for which the premises may have been sold, with ten per cent per annum interest thereon from the date of such sale, for the use of the purchaser, upon the payment of which the officer is authorized to file a certificate of the redemption of the lands by the judgment creditor.

Section 16, Revised Laws of 1845, page 303,...