This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1869 edition. Excerpt: ...of the deed, even if the residue is to be deemed vacant land, the occupant is entitled to redeem the whole; and if so, is entitled to notice for that purpose. The deed does not become absolute in respect to any part till such notice and default of payment; for in case of every sale and conveyance of land in the actual possession and occupation of any person, notice shall be served, stating, among other things, the amount of consideration, the thirty-seven and a half per cent, and cost of deed; and the whole amount must be paid, and when paid, the whole purchase is redeemed, and the title of the purchaser divested. The occupant cannot redeem without paying the whole purchase-money, together with interest and expenses, though in possession of part only. He would have a remedy over against the owner of the residue. I cannot perceive how the purchaser can escape giving the notice, by consenting to take the unoccupied part, since it is not distinguished from that occupied by the statute, when both are included in one bid. If there is an occupant of part only, he is en-333 titled to notice before his possession can be disturbed. Each notice calls for the whole purchase-money. On failure to comply with its requirements, the whole title becomes absolute; on compliance, the whole is defeated. As the purchaser may compel the occupant of part, upon notice, to redeem the whole lot or forfeit his share of it, it should not be left optional with him either to give such notice or compound with the occupant, and take the residue of the bid without notice." In Bush v. Davison,1 the plaintiff claimed to recover thirty acres of land, under a deed executed bythe comptroller of the State, conveying ninety-five acres of land as sold for taxes, of which...