HURST, V.C.J. The question presented is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief from the resale of a five-acre tract of land in Oklahoma county sold at the 1941 resale, under the rules stated in Grimes v. Carter, 185 Okla. 469, 94 P.2d 544, Headley v. Hall, 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018, and Martin v. Bodovitz, 194 Okla. 614, 153 P.2d 825. The material facts presented by the record are as follows: The plaintiff, Henry F. Schwarze, was the former owner of the property, having purchased it in 1929 and taken title in the name of the plaintiff, Andrew Diehm, brother of Mrs. Schwarze. The taxes against the property for 1932 were paid by Schwarze on November 7, 1933, and those for 1934 were paid by Schwarze on December 14, 1934, and the receipts therefor were kept by Schwarze and introduced in evidence.

SAME — Tax deed subject to cancellation. Where the nonpayment of delinquent taxes against property is due to the misinformation or miscalculation of the tax collector, upon inquiry by the property owner, and the property owner has acted in accord with such misinformation or miscalculation and in good faith done all that was thereby required to discharge his property from the tax burden, any tax deed issued against the property, so long as the owner remains in ignorance of another or greater tax burden, will be treated as subject to cancellation upon equitable consideration. Headley v. Hall, 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018. 3. SAME — Sufficiency of tender in action to cancel resale tax deed issued to county.

We think that when, upon three different occasions, the county treasurer was requested to check his records on that point, and when, upon each occasion he specifically stated that taxes for the last quarter of 1939 were not included in the resale, although it now appears that they were, the defendants and their attorney had the right to rely upon such information and were not required to personally investigate the records to determine that fact. Just why the county treasurer repeatedly misinformed them does not appear, but that he did so is uncontroverted, and relying upon such information they made no attack upon the validity of the resale deed, either in their pleadings or at the trial of the case. In numerous cases, such as Headley v. Hall. 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018; Hancock v. Jones, 199 Okla. 443, 187 P.2d 224; Ponder v. Ebey, 194 Okla. 407, 152 P.2d 268, and others, we have held that misinformation as to delinquent taxes given to a taxpayer by the county treasurer, whereby the taxpayer was misled and failed to pay all his taxes, rendered the tax deed based upon such failure to pay subject to cancellation at the suit of the delinquent taxpayer on equitable considerations. We think the same rule should apply in cases where one who seeks to avoid a resale tax deed inquires of the county treasurer as to the state of his records on a particular point which affects the validity of the resale deed, and because of misinformation given by that official, fails to assert, in an action involving the title to the land, the invalidity of the deed, which invalidity he could have successfully asserted had he been correctly informed of the condition of the treasurer's records.

Our subsequent discussion of the facts herein demonstrates why we do not agree with the attempted distinguishment. See, also, Hull, Adm'r, v. Baxter, 195 Okla. 425, 158 P.2d 910; Headley v. Hall, 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018; McKinney v. Farrow et ux., 194 Okla. 397, 152 P.2d 265. If the descriptions on the receipt delivered to the deputy treasurer had been followed, the taxes due on the quarter section of land involved here would not have been omitted.

The tender was timely made. The tax proceedings by virtue of which the resale tax deed of the defendant was issued are not questioned. The trial court's judgment is based upon the decision in Headley v. Halt, 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018; McKinney v. Farrow, 194 Okla. 397, 152 P.2d 265; Grimes v. Carter, 185 Okla. 469, 94 P.2d 544; and in Alexander v. James, 195 Okla. 309, 157 P.2d 456, wherein we said: "In an action to cancel tax deed where nonpayment of delinquent taxes is chargeable to misinformation or miscalculation of tax collector, on inquiry by owner of realty, and owner acting in good faith under such misinformation or miscalculation, and justifiably relying thereon, has made reasonably diligent effort to discharge his realty from the tax burden, any tax deed issued against the property so long as the owner remained in ignorance of another or greater tax burden will be treated as subject to cancellation on equitable consideration, upon full money tender."

If, under such circumstances, some or all of the taxes due are not paid by reason of the mistake or carelessness of the county treasurer, or his deputy, in calculating the taxes due, the taxpayer is entitled, in an action brought for that purpose, to have a tax deed set aside, if his evidence clearly shows that the taxes due, or any part thereof, were unpaid by reason solely of the mistake, omission, negligence, or fraud of the county treasurer or his deputy. Grimes v. Carter, 185 Okla. 469, 94 P.2d 544; Stamper v. Schwartz, 191 Okla. 308, 129 P.2d 587; Headley v. Hall, 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018; Martin v. Bodovitz, 194 Okla. 614, 153 P.2d 825. Plaintiff in good faith attempted to pay all the taxes on her property.

"In an action to cancel tax deed where nonpayment of delinquent taxes is chargeable to misinformation or miscalculation of tax collector, on inquiry by owner of realty, and owner acting in good faith under such misinformation or miscalculation, and justifiably relying thereon, has made reasonably diligent effort to discharge his realty from the tax burden, any tax deed issued against the property so long as the owner remained in ignorance of another or greater tax burden will be treated as subject to cancellation on equitable consideration, upon full money tender." See Headley v. Hall, 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018; McKinney v. Farrow, 194 Okla. 397, 152 P.2d 265; Ponder v. Ebey, 194 Okla. 407, 152 P.2d 268, and Grimes v. Carter, 185 Okla. 469, 94 P.2d 544. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This court holds that even the tender of payment defeats the power to sell. Grimes v. Carter, 185 Okla. 469, 94 P.2d 544; Headley et al. v. Hall et al., 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018. Excessive charges defeat the power to sell.

"The bona fide effort of the defendant in error to pay the 1938 taxes which was thwarted by the negligence or mistake of the county treasurer, renders the tax deed void as to the east half of southeast quarter, and the northwest quarter of southeast quarter." Under this proposition and upon the evidence disclosed by the record, as summarized above, plaintiff invokes the rule announced by this court in the following cases: Grimes v. Carter, 185 Okla. 469, 94 P.2d 544; Headley v. Hall, 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018; McKinney v. Farrow et al., 194 Okla. 397, 152 P.2d 265; Ponder et al. v. Ebey, 194 Okla. 407, 152 P.2d 268; Thompson v. Freeman, 194 Okla. 554, 153 P.2d 99; Martin et al. v. Bodovitz, 194 Okla. 614; 153 P.2d 825. Against this contention of plaintiff defendants merely urge that the plaintiff has not pleaded or shown by clear, cogent, or convincing proof that she had done all the law requires her to do in her purported effort to pay all the taxes on the land involved. The proof is very clear and cogent on the purpose or effort of plaintiff to pay her 1938 taxes prior to the 1942 tax resale as indicated.

Her failure to follow the provisions of the law was due to the admitted negligence or misinformation of the county treasurer. In Headley v. Hall, 191 Okla. 352, 129 P.2d 1018, this court declared that: "Where the nonpayment of delinquent taxes against property is due to the misinformation or miscalculation of the tax collector, upon inquiry by the property owner, and the property owner has acted in accord with such misinformation or miscalculation and in good faith done all that was thereby required to discharge his property from the tax burden, any tax deed issued against the property so long as the owner remains in ignorance of another or greater tax burden will be treated as subject to cancellation upon equitable considerations.