The rule that in some cases redemption may be allowed of a portion of the entity of land where at foreclosure it was broken up between two or more purchasers, is to be distinguished where all of the land was sold to one purchaser. Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463, 465; Duncan v. Hubbard, supra. Right of redemption of a separate parcel is subject to approval of holder of title to that parcel. Tribble v. Ward, 186 Ala. 329, 334, 65 So. 73. Appellant is subrogated to the right the mortgagee had before foreclosure of not having his debt and security divided.
Shealy argues that as Carleton's assignee he has a separate and distinct right of redemption to each of the three tracts and that regardless of Carleton's actions with respect to the home tract, he had not forfeited his right to redeem the pasture tract and the subdivision tract. In Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463 (1917), this Court held: "[R]edemption may and must be made as a unit, the unit or units being for this purpose determined by the original sale or sales, and not by the purchaser's subsequent subsale of parcels of the unit he may have purchased."
But this question, with others argued in brief, to one side, we think this case determinable upon a principle as to the exercise of the statutory right of redemption, now well established by our decisions. That principle is that such a redemption cannot be effected by "piecemeal," but must be of the entire tract, as the statute makes an indivisible entity of the act of redemption. "Redemption operates on the legal title and against the holder thereof; and must be of the entire tract en masse (Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463) and not by piecemeal, as the act of redemption is an 'indivisible entity.' " Dewberry v. Bank of Standing Rock, 227 Ala. 484, 150 So. 463, 468; Hargett v. Franklin County, 212 Ala. 423, 103 So. 40; Snow v. Montesano Land Co., 206 Ala. 310, 89 So. 719; Francis v. White, 160 Ala. 523, 49 So. 334; Cowley v. Shields, 180 Ala. 48, 60 So. 267; Morrison v. Formby, 191 Ala. 104, 67 So. 668.
A mortgagor is not required to pay the balance of the debt when redeeming from a stranger. Johns v. Anchors, 153 Ala. 498, 45 So. 218; Mobile Mutual v. Steele, 61 Ala. 253 ; Comm. R. E. B. Ass'n. v. Parker, 84 Ala. 298, 4 So. 268; First Nat. Bank v. Elliott, 125 Ala. 646, 27 So. 7, 47 L.R.A. 742, 82 Am. St. Rep. 268; Chambers v. Pollak, 143 Ala. 438, 39 So. 316; Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463; Ivy v. Hood, 202 Ala. 122, 79 So. 587. A witness may not testify as to the contents of a letter without accounting for its loss. Laster v. Blackwell, 128 Ala. 143, 30 So. 663. Ball Beckwith, of Montgomery, for appellee.
The bill concedes and proceeds on the theory that complainant, a junior mortgagee of part of the property purchased by respondents at foreclosure sale of the senior mortgage, must redeem both tracts and seeks so to do. Since the court sustained this feature of the bill, we are not concerned with whether complainant could redeem only the parcel covered by his mortgage, nor whether his right of redemption was limited to that parcel. See Francis et al. v. White, 166 Ala. 409, 52 So. 349; Jones v. Matkin, 118 Ala. 341, 348, 24 So. 242; Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463. The bill does not allege the purchase price of the two tracts at foreclosure sale were sufficient to cover the balance of the debt secured by the mortgage foreclosed and the balance due on the third mortgage, then owned by the purchasers.
That is to say, the appellant insists that the general rule resulting from the foregoing decisions and that of the text-books is that if lands are sold in mass, redemption must be in mass. 23 Corpus Juris, 713; Freeman on Execution, § 296; Oldfield v. Eulert, 148 Ill. 614, 36 N.E. 615, 39 Am.St. Rep. 231; Francis et al. v. White, 160 Ala. 523, 49 So. 334; Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463; Snow v. Montesano Land Co. et al., 206 Ala. 310, 89 So. 719. The effect of the demurrer to this phase of the bill is by inference to challenge the necessity for the sale of both tracts of land to satisfy the execution.
The theory upon which the parties endeavored to reach a settlement and upon which the cause was tried was that when the amount due by complainant was ascertained, same would be paid by complainant to respondent in full of all amounts due and that redemption would follow of all collateral held by the respondent, including land and cotton, in lump sum. Hence, the court was correct in decreeing payment of the entire indebtedness as a condition to redemption of the property. Roulhac v. Jones, 78 Ala. 398; Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463; Hargett v. Franklin Co., 212 Ala. 423, 103 So. 40. KNIGHT, Justice.
19 R.C.L. 424; Dinkins v. Latham, 202 Ala. 101, 104, 79 So. 493; Williamson v. Mayer, 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; Farmers' Sav. Bank v. Murphree, 200 Ala. 574, 76 So. 932; Johnson v. Wood, 125 Ala. 330, 28 So. 454; Drake v. Rhodes, 155 Ala. 498, 46 So. 769; Ward v. Ward, 108 Ala. 278, 19 So. 354; Hunter v. Mellen, 127 Ala. 343, 28 So. 468; Windes v. Russell, 150 Ala. 625, 43 So. 788. There was no obligation upon the mortgagee to sell the personalty separately. If it could obtain a better price by selling en masse, it was the mortgagee's duty to do so. Loveland v. Clark, 11 Colo. 265, 18 P. 544; Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463; Roulhac v. Jones, 78 Ala. 398; 19 R.C.L. 424. The advertisement of sale was sufficient; it was not necessary that detailed descriptions be given. Jones, Chat. Mtgs.(2d Ed.) 54; 41 C.J. 920, 950; Dutton v. Gibson, 222 Ala. 191, 131 So. 567; People's Sav. Bank v. Wunderlich, 178 Mass. 453, 59 N.E. 1040, 86 Am.St.Rep. 493; Stephenson v. Harris, 153 Ala. 462, 45 So. 196; Nichols v. Nichols, 192 Ala. 206, 68 So. 186; Hayden v. Smith, 216 Ala. 428, 113 So. 293. The chancellor found that the prices bid were adequate; but inadequacy of price alone would not justify setting aside the sale. Hunter-Benn Co. Company v. Bassett Lbr. Co., 224 Ala. 215, 139 So. 348; Hayden v. Smith, supra. There was ratification of the sale both by appellant and the trustee in bankruptcy, and appellant is estopped to have relief against either of the appellees.
Failing in this, it affected the right of redemption as to G. W. Dewberry (Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Wilson, 224 Ala. 491, 141 So. 539; Buchmann v. Callahan, 222 Ala. 240, 131 So. 799; Jordan v. Sumners, 222 Ala. 314, 132 So. 427; Lamar v. Johnson, 16 Ala. App. 648, 81 So. 140) under the statute (section 10140, Code), after a strict foreclosure (Hamm v. Butler, 215 Ala. 572, 112 So. 141). Redemption operates on the legal title and against the holder thereof; and must be of the entire tract en masse (Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463), and not by piecemeal, as the act of redemption is an "indivisible entity" (Hargett v. Franklin County, 212 Ala. 423, 103 So. 40; Hobson v. Robertson, 224 Ala. 49, 138 So. 548; Snow v. Montesano Land Co., 206 Ala. 310, 89 So. 719; Cowley v. Shields, 180 Ala. 48, 60 So. 267; Morrison v. Formby, 191 Ala. 104, 67 So. 668; Slaughter v. Webb, 205 Ala. 334, 87 So. 854; Francis v. White, 166 Ala. 409, 52 So. 349). What of the wife's rights of redemption where the mortgage embraced the homestead and other tracts and the foreclosure and purchase was by the mortgagee purchasing at his own sale of all the lands sold en masse?
Morrison v. Formby, 191 Ala. 104, 67 So. 668; Snow v. Montesano Land Co., 206 Ala. 310, 311, 89 So. 719; Hamilton v. Cody, 206 Ala. 102, 89 So. 240; Lacy v. Fowler, 206 Ala. 679, 91 So. 593. It is further declared that redemption cannot be effected by "piecemeal," but of the entire tract sold (Slaughter v. Webb, 205 Ala. 334, 87 So. 854; Francis v. White, 166 Ala. 409, 410, 52 So. 349; Cowley v. Shields, 180 Ala. 48, 60 So. 267; Harden v. Collins, 138 Ala. 399, 35 So. 357, 100 Am. St. Rep. 42; Prichard v. Sweeney, 109 Ala. 651, 19 So. 730; Roulhac v. Jones, 78 Ala. 398); that, where the lands have been broken into separate tracts or lots in the foreclosure, the mortgagor may maintain a bill in equity against the purchaser of a parcel for redemption, without bringing in the purchasers of the other parcels and prayer for "a single conjoint redemption of both parcels" (Lord v. Blue, 200 Ala. 521, 76 So. 463; Snow v. Montesano Land Co., 206 Ala. 310, 89 So. 719; Johnson v. Williams, ante, p. 319, 102 So. 527). It is established that the averment, in a bill to redeem, that the purchaser at an execution sale has conveyed some of the parcels of land to other persons is sufficient excuse for a failure on the part of the redemptioner to pay or tender to the purchaser or his vendee the amount required to effectuate redemption, when, by the subsequent acts of the purchaser, he has put it beyond the power of the redemptioner to effectuate a redemption of the whole tract of land, as provided by statute, out of court; hence the aid of a court of equity may be invoked.