446 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Enoch Horton was appointed assignee, and an assignment ■was made to him of the bankrupt'a estate, by the register in bankruptcy, August 16, 1870, and he filed a certificate of exempt property on August 23, 1870. Torenus, Staples and Bronson submitted exceptions to this certiflcate, and after argument, on February 18, 1871, an order was entered setting aside the designation of exempt property, deciding that block five (5) was the homestead of the bankrupt, and directing the assignee to set it aside. On May 19, 1871, the bankrupt and wife conveyed block five (5) to the plaintiff, and under ihis deed he claims title. �Horton, the assignee, having first obtained an order there- for from the court, redeemed from Torenus, Staples and Bronson, who held the certificate, the property mentioned iiherein, including block five, (5,) on April 21, 1871, three days before the equity of redemption vested in the bankrupt expired. He was compelled to pay to them the full amount, as the property was originally sold in one body, and to redeem with the other premises bloek five, (5,) the home- stead, in which the bankrupt had an equity of redemption only. �The time for redemption by the bankrupt expired April 23, 1871, and no steps were taken by him to perfect his title to block 5, thus set apart to him as a homestead. He al- lowed the time for redemption to lapse, and the assignee obtained an order June 20, 1871, to sellthe property in block 4. He, however, sold not only this property, but block 5 also, which was not included in the order, and on Octo- ber 23, 1872, the sale was confirmed. At this sale ail the property was purchased by Torenus, and the assignee executed to him a deed October 3, 1872. Torenus conveyed to the defendant Halberg October 23, 1873, and Halberg conveyed to defendant Peterson May 12, 1873. This controversy is with reference to the title to block five (5.) �The plaintiff urges — First, that the foreclosure and sale under the advertisement was void, for the reason that a larger attorney's fee was claimed than stipulated in the mortgage ; second, that the same was void for the f urther reason that the ��� �
