343 FBDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �erty, were given, on account of the difiSculties in the mind of the agent who acted in behalf of Cummins. This person was only anxioug to make a legal and sufficient redemption, but was perplexed as to the proper form of making the certifi- cates, and in doubt ■vrhether, Cummins being a lienholder by virtue of a mortgage taken by him on the sale of the prop- erty subsequent to the date of his mortgage to "Marcy," there should not be separate certificates. The fact is proved, how- ever, that the sheriff received the whole amount of the pur- chaser's bid for redemption within the time provided by the statute, and by this payment Cummins made a valid redemp- tion. It is urged by the plaintiff's counsel that this evidence contradicts the sheriflf's certifieates and is inadmissible. �I cannot agree to the proposition that these certifieates are conclusive upon the party who made the redemption. The question to be determined is, did Cummins pay for the pur- pose of redeeming from the "Marcy" foreclosure sale the full amount necessary, and within the time fixed by the statute to make a valid redemption ? I think the evidence proves he did pay the whole amount of the bid two days beiore the year expired, and complied with the statute, which entitled him to the property released from any claim of the purchaser. �The statute giving the redemption should be liberally con- strued, and when the money is paid in good faith the person redeeming should be protected, although the sheriff's certifi- cate may recite a different state of facts. �Judgment will be entered in favor of the defendant, and it is so ordered. ����
