50 C.J.S. Judicial Sales Sec. 37c; Colvin v. Weigold, 31 Ariz. 370, 253 P. 633; State ex rel. Anderson v. Kerr, 51 Minn. 417, 53 N.W. 719; State v. O'Connor, 6 N.D. 285, 69 N.W. 692.Kuper v. Stojack, 57 Wn.2d 482, 358 P.2d 132; Burwell Monford v. Seattle Plumbing Supply Co., 14 Wn.2d 537, 128 P.2d 859. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a court, sitting in equity, may in appropriate instances extend the period.

[4] Redemption from execution sale is governed by statute. In Kuper v. Stojack, 57 Wn.2d 482, 358 P.2d 132 (1960), the court quoted with approval from Burwell Morford v. Seattle Plumbing Supply Co., 14 Wn.2d 537, 128 P.2d 859 (1942), as follows: The right to redeem property sold under execution is not an equitable right created or regulated by principles of equity.

In the manner in which the case stood at the time of the argument upon the respondents' demurrer to the appellant's complaint for a declaratory judgment, September 14, 1959, the action of the trial court was correct. The controlling rule of law was announced in Burwell Morford v. Seattle Plumbing Supply Co., 14 Wn.2d 537, 128 P.2d 859: "The right to redeem property sold under execution is not an equitable right created or regulated by principles of equity.

[3] The respondents contend that Western's lien was foreclosed by the above judgment. Relying on Burwell Morford v. Seattle Plumbing Supply Co., 14 Wn.2d 537, 128 P.2d 859 (1942), they contend that the appellant, who is in Western's position, is not a redemptioner under the statute, as one may not redeem from his own foreclosure sale. The rule of the Burwell case, as stated, is correct.

Bracketed material in original. According to the Washington Supreme Court, Washington's redemption scheme is "almost identical" to California's. Burwell Morford v. Seattle Plumbing Supply Co., 14 Wn.2d 537, 543, 128 P.2d 859 (1942). 3 WASH. STATE BAR ASS'N, REAL PROPERTY DESKBOOK § 46.15(4) (3rd ed. 1996) (quoting Darryl A. Hart, The Statutory Right of Redemption in California, 52 CAL. L. REV. 846, 851 (1964)).

112 Wn.2d 47, 767 P.2d 1382 (1989).Kuper v. Stojack, 57 Wn.2d 482, 358 P.2d 132 (1960); Burwell Morford v. Seattle Plumbing Supply Co., 14 Wn.2d 537, 128 P.2d 859 (1942). 105 Wn.2d 248, 713 P.2d 728 (1986).

The Stauffers point to cases in other jurisdictions where joint foreclosures have been upheld by the courts. E.g., Western Land Cattle Co. v. National Bank of Arizona, 28 Ariz. 270, 236 P. 725 (1925); Horn v. Indianapolis Nat. Bank, 125 Ind. 381, 25 N.E. 558 (1890); Burwell and Morford v. Seattle Plumbing Supply Co., 14 Wn.2d 537, 128 P.2d 859 (1942) (junior cannot redeem following joint foreclosure). Apparently joint foreclosure is not an uncommon practice.