Reynolds v. Brothers

• Decision Date: 31 March 1869
• Citation: 46 Tenn. 221
• Parties: Reynolds v. Baker and Walker Brothers.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

46 Tenn. 221

Reynolds

v.Baker and Walker Brothers.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March Term, 1869.

FROM KNOX.

At the May Term. 1867, there was a decree for the complainants, and an appeal by the defendants. Chancellor SETH J. W. LUCKEY, presiding.TEMPLE & ANDREWS, and JAMES W. DEADERICK for Complainant.

COCKE & HENDERSON, for Respondents.

HENRY G. SMITH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The facts material to present the questions upon which the case turns, are these:

Wallace bought the land in controversy, on the 2d day of June, 1860, at execution sale, upon judgment against Reynolds. Within two years after the sale, the Walker Brothers being judgment creditors of Reynolds, redeemed the land from Wallace; and soon after the expiration of the two years, obtained a conveyance of the land from the Sheriff. Afterwards, and on the 12th day of February, 1863, they sold and conveyed the land to Baker. Before the conveyance to Baker, and after the expiration of the two years, and while the Walker Brothers held the title to the land, Reynolds proposed to them to redeem, which they declined to allow him to do.

The bill was filed on the 14th day January, 1865, by Reynolds, against Baker and the Walker Brothers; and the purpose and prayer is to enforce the right of redemption. Reynolds grounds his claim of right to redeem, upon the 4th section of the constitutional amendments, of February 22, 1865, and upon the Act of the General Assembly, of May 30, 1865, chapter 10.

The 4th section of the constitutional amendments, and the Act of May 30, 1865, chapter 10, sections 1 and 2, ordain and enact that no statute of limitation shall be held to operate from the 6th day of May, 1861, to the 1st of January, 1867.

And the 4th section of the Act enacts that the time between those days shall not be computed or held to operate, in cases where real estate, sold under execution, decree, etc., is subject to redemption.

The Code, sections 21, 24, etc., authorizes the debtor, when land has been sold under execution, etc., to redeem it within two years after the sale, from the purchaser, or any one claiming under him.

It is apparent, from the foregoing statement, that the two years after the sale expired before the offer to redeem was made by Reynolds, and before the filing of his bill, and before the constitutional amendment of February 22, 1865, was ordained, and before the Act of May, 30, 1865, was enacted.

And further, that if the time between the 6th day of May, 1861, and the day of the offer to redeem, or the date of the filing of the bill, be dropped from the computation, the offer to redeem and the filing of the bill, were within the two years prescribed by the Code for redemption after the day of sale.

For the complainant it is urged, that the law of redemption is a statute of limitations, and, therefore, within the scope and force of the constitutional amendment--the legislative Act of May 30, 1865.

The claim can not be allowed, and for many reasons:

In the legislation of the State, the law of redemption has never been considered a statute of limitations. The Code of 1858 does not so classify. It is treated and classified as a law of property, and not of remedy; and is embraced under the title of “Rights of Property,” and not of “Civil Actions,” which latter title embraces the laws of limitations.

And so also, the General Assembly of 1865 appears to have considered it not a law of limitations. The 1st and 2d sections of the Act, in terms, embrace and dispose of the purpose of the Legislature in regard to the operation of statutes of limitation during the war of the rebellion. The effect of the war upon the laws of redemption is dealt with separately, and in the 4th section is disposed of in a manner and upon terms, differing from the treatment of the laws of limitation. In regard to the statutes of limitation, nothing more is done than to drop from the computation of time, the period between the 6th day of May, 1861, and the 1st day of January, 1867. But as to the law of redemption, that period is dropped from the computation of the time, and a limitation is prescribed upon the right to redeem, of six months after the 1st day of January, 1867.

Other and more decisive reasons, exclude the notion that the law of redemption is a statute of limitations. Essential differences exist, which distinguish them beyond the possibility of confusion.

The law of redemption is a statute which confers upon the party where land is sold for debt by executions, etc., the right to redeem or re-purchase the land within two years after the sale.

A statute of limitations is a law which prescribes the time during which a title may be acquired to property by virtue of adverse possession and enjoyment; or, it is a law which prescribes the time, at the end of which no action at law or suit in equity can be maintained: Ang. Lim., s. 1, 4th edition.

The differences are obvious and vital. In the class of limtations first defined, adverse possession of the property, in regard to which the law of limitation operates, is an essential element. Without possession, the law of limitation can have no effect upon the property. On the other hand, possession of the redeemable land is not an element that enters into, or to any extent, affects, the right of redemption. The right of neither party is in any manner, or to an extent, affected by the possession. The right exists, and is enforced or lost without any regard to the possession.

Further, the title of the purchaser is not founded upon or made perfect by possession His title is founded upon his purchase, and upon his purchase only. Possession neither adds to nor detracts from his title.

And so, too, as to the debtor whose land is sold. His right to redeem is not founded upon his having or not having possession. Out of or in possession, his right to redeem is all the same. It is lost by the lapse of time; and that, alone, puts an end to his right.

The adverse relation does not subsist between the debtor and the purchaser, as between parties where the law of limitations operates. The purchaser and debtor are in privity with each other. The purchaser holds under, and in privity with, and by succession to the estate and title of the debtor. His title is not adverse to the title of the debtor. It is the title of the debtor, conveyed by operation of law, directly to the purchaser.

Equally unlike is the law of redemption to the other class of statutes of limitation, those which especially operate upon and against the remedy. The debtor's right to redeem or re-purchase, is not a cause of action at law or in equity. His right is to tender the money, and have a re-conveyance of the land to him. To perfect his right of redemption, requires no action at law or in equity. The tender of the money within the two years, establishes and perfects the right. It is not the bringing of the action within the two years which gives or saves the right. If the tender of the money be made within the time, the action may be brought after the lapse of...