The suits at law brought on these policies by Mrs. Raden's attorneys are clearly shown to have been instituted under a mistake of fact. Smith led these attorneys to believe that Langley was the agent of their client, and that the notice of cancellation given, and the return premium paid to him, effected a rescission of the policies in the defendant companies,-the Niagara Fire and the Hamburg-Bremen Insurance Companies. These suits cannot, for this reason, operate as a ratification by Mrs. Raden of the acceptance of the new policies, and as an intentional abandonment of her vested rights under the poliicies in existence when the loss occurred. Our judgment is, that the chancellor did not err in holding the policies here in controversy to be binding on the insurers, and that his decree granting the relief prayed is free from error, and must be affirmed. GARDNER V. LANFORD et al. (Supreme Court of Alabama. April 29, 1889.) EXECUTION-REDEMPTION-EMBLEMENTS. Tenants by the year under a purchaser of land at sheriff's sale are entitled to the growing crops on redemption by the judgment debtor. Appeal from chancery court, Dallas county; THOMAS W. COLEMAN, Chancellor. Bill by A. V. Gardner against R. H. Lanford and others, to redeem certain land from execution sale. A demurrer to the bill was sustained in part, and complainant appeals. Watts & Son and S. W. John, for appellant. White & White, for appellees. MCCLELLAN, J. Appellant's lands were sold under execution on September 27, 1886, and bought by appellee Lanford. A part of the land being in the possession of the purchaser in 1888, he rented it for that year to appellees Savel and King, who entered thereon as his tenants, cultivated the land, and had a valuable crop outstanding on it on the 24th day of September, 1888, at which time a tender and offer to redeem was made by appellant, which was declined by Lanford, and to effectuate which the bill in this case was filed. The bill contains, besides the usual allegations for redemption, other averments which set up a claim to the outstanding crops, and makes a case, on the assumption of the soundness of this claim, for an injunction to prevent the gathering and removal of the crops by the defendants. The injunction was issued in accordance with the prayer of the bill, for this and other purposes not important to consider here, and afterwards, by agreement of parties, a receiver was appointed for the crops. Demurrers were interposed to the bill generally for want of equity, and specially to those parts of it which asserted complainant's right to the crops, and sought an injunction with respect to them. The cause being submitted on the bill and demurrers, the chancellor overruled those grounds of objections which went to the general equity of the bill, and sustained the demurrers which set up the invalidity of complainant's claim to the crops. The decree in this last particular is assigned as error. The one question presented by the record is whether the tenant of a purchaser at execution sale, or the debtor, who exercises the statutory right of redemption, is entitled to the crops growing on the lands at the time of redemption. The solution of this question depends, in our judgment, on the character of the tenancy of Ford and King. There of course can be no doubt that Lanford acquired the entire estate in these lands by the sale and conveyance of the sheriff. That which was left in the judgment debtor was not property, but a mere right, by the exercise of which, in the mode pointed out by the statute, he could revest the property in himself,-a privilege which he might or might not avail himself of, and, failing to exercise within the statutory limits of its existence, he forever lost. The rights of Lanford in the land within the redemption period were precisely the same as they would. have been after its expiration, except that until the time had elapsed his title was subject to the privilege of purchase by the debtor or those claiming through him, and these rights embraced all that attend upon the ownership; among others, the right to the incomes and profits arising from the occupation of the land, and the right to lease it, and to receive rents. He did lease it for the year 1888. His lessees were entitled to hold for that year subject to a contingency which might terminate his estate and their tenancy before the end of the term. The contingency happened, the estate fell, and with it the tenancy terminated. It needs no argument to demonstrate that the term of the lessees, contingent from its inception on the exercise of the statutory privilege of redemption by the debtor,-the uncertain act of a third party,— was itself uncertain, and, if the tender and offer to redeem were made in compliance with the law, was terminated at a time and in a manner which in legal contemplation was unexpected to the lessor and lessees. In such casesthe rule is universal that the tenant is entitled to emblements, and, while his tenancy is at an end, he still has the rights of ingress, egress, and regress, for the purpose of reaping what he has sown. Conceding the manifest uncertainty of the tenants' term, the authorities are uniform in support of the conclusion we have reached. 2 Wait, Act. & Def. 221-224; 4 Wait, Act. & Def. 252, 253; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 132; Tied. Real Prop. § 71; Weems v. Bryan, 21 Ala. 303; Price v. Pickett, Id. 741. The result thus attained is not inconsistent with any adjudged case or recognized text which has been cited by counsel. Authorities are referred to which hold that the redemption eo instanti reinvests the title in the debtor. There can be no doubt about the correctness of that proposition, but, so far as its effect on the question involved here is concerned, it but furnishes the predicate the determination of the estates of the purchaser and his lessees in the land-upon which the doctrine of the tenants' subsequent right to emblements depends. The argument that the tenants in this cause should notbe allowed emblements because Lanford would not have been entitled to them had he cultivated the land himself would apply with equal force to all cases in which the lessee's term is defeated by the lapse of the lessor's title through the occurrence of an unforeseen event, to the emasculation of the salutary doctrine, which has existed since the days of feudalism, that whenever a tenancy, other than at sufferance, is, from the first, of uncertain duration, and is unexpectedly terminated without fault of the tenant, he is entitled to emblements. It is settled in this state that rents which the purchaser has received may be set off against his claim for permanent improvements; and doubtless rents which he had reserved, but which did not mature until after redemption, would, on general principles, belong to the redemptioner. It would be to the last degree inequitable to allow the redemptioner, on the one hand, to set off the purchaser's claim for improvements with the rents he had received from the tenants, or to receive such rents if they fall due after redemption, and, on the other, to take from these tenants the crops grown on lands, the rent for which he had either received, or had the benefit of, in his settlementwith their landlord. The effect of that part of the decree which is assigned as error was to deny the complainant's right, under these circumstances, to the emblements, and it is affirmed. END OF VOLUME 5. INDEX. NOTE. A star (*) indicates that the case referred to is annotated. 3. But although there has been a final ad- Plea in abatement, see Criminal Law, 6; struck, a recovery cannot be had upon an ac- Another action pending. 1. As the power of the probate court is in- 2. The lands being situated in several coun- Abduction. count stated unless the amount of such bal- 4. Where only one or two items of an ac- Impeachment. 5. An account stated is open to impeach- Acknowledgment. Of chattel mortgages, see Chattel Mortgages, debt, see Limitation of Actions, 12. ACTION. Enticing away servant, see Master and Ser- Abatement of, see Abatement and Revival. Accomplice. Evidence of, see Criminal Law, 26–28. Accord and Satisfaction. Account. See Account Stated. Of executors, etc., see Executors and Ad- guardian, see Guardian and Ward, 4. ACCOUNT STATED. What constitutes. 1. Where an account against a party is ren- 2. Where parties meet to look over each v.5so.-56 Against state, see States and State Officers, 1-4. By and against husband and wife, see Hus- partnership, see Partnership, 6, 7. executors, etc., see Executors and Ad- For breach of covenant, see Covenants, 4-7. negligence, see Carriers, 2-10; Horse and Limitation of, see Limitation of Actions. bonds, pleading, see Bonds, 1-3. injunction bonds, see Injunction, 8-11. sheriffs' bonds, see Sheriffs and Consta- Particular forms, see Assumpsit; Ejectment; Practice, see Practice in Civil Cases. Separate claims-Jurisdiction. 1. A landlord may sue separately for each 2275 and 2440, requiring that a title to effect a 2. Proceedings for condemnation of land in- 2. Two actions pending in the same court behold the premises.-Mobile & G. R. Co. v. Adjoining Land-Owners. See Fences. 3. In ejectment, there was evidence that S. Diversion of surface water, see Surface Held, that the evidence warranted the sub- Water. Adjournment. Of court by judge, see Judge, 2. Administration. See Executors and Administrators. ADULTERY. Ground for divorce, see Divorce, 2, 3. 1. On a trial for living in adultery, under 2. They were also properly instructed that ADVERSE POSSESSION. Prescription of ten years. mission to the jury of the question of adverse 4. Where defendant in ejectment relies only 5. Correspondence and transactions between Instruction. 6. Where, in ejectment, both parties claimed Affidavit. For taking deposition, see Deposition, 3, 4. See Principal and Agent. Agricultural Department. 1. Under Civil Code La, art. 3478, providing Public printing for, see Public Printer. ALTERATION OF INSTRU- Pleading—Burden of proof. Jurisdictional amount. 5. Where the pleadings contain a specific Ambiguity. - 7. Where a party resists the payment of a In deed, parol evidence to explain, see Deed, not the value of the property seized therefor, 3, 4. Amendment. Of pleadings, see Pleading, 9-11. Animals. is the matter of dispute. In such cases, if the 8. The supreme court of Louisiana has no Increase, lien of mortgage, see Chattel Mort- $2,000 recognized on a judgment exceeding Who may appeal. 2. Where, on opposition to an executor's ac- 3. A defendant in attachment proceedings, 4. Code Miss. § 2309, denying appeal from that sum.-Young v. Duncan, (La.) 861. Requisites-Bond. 9. Under Code Prac. La. art. 318, rule 29 of 10. Where an appeal at law is entered during 11. The fact that an appeal-bond, on appeal 12. Where an appeal-bond has been given 13. An assignment to the overruling of a 14. An appeal from a judgment will not be |