A defeated tax claimant for the taxes he had paid, | same day, and recorded in said office April 1, with interest, costs, etc. SIMPSON, C. This action was instituted by Luther C. Challiss in the district court of Atchison county on the 3d day of September, 1883, to recover possession of lot No. 1, block No. 35, and lot No. 1, block 36, both in L. C. Challiss' addition to the city of Atchison. The cause was tried before the court without a jury, and conclusions of fact and law found and stated by the court as follows: "(1) On March 15, 1858, the plaintiff, Luther C. Challiss, caused to be filed in the office of the recorder or register of deeds of Atchison county, Kan. T., a map or plat marked Challiss' Addition;' the description written on the back thereof being as follows, viz.. The within plat of Challiss' addition to the city of Atchison, containing 20 3-10 acres, and is described as follows All that part of the north-west quarter of fractional section 6, township 6 south, of range 21, which was not originally laid off into town lots by the Atchison Town Company, on the west side of said quarter section, and not included in the original plat of said town. It is described more minutely as follows: Commencing at a point 315 feet east of the west line, and 368 feet south of the north line, of said quarter section; running west 315 feet to the west line, south 2,906 feet to the south line; thence east 295 feet; thence north 2,906 feet, to the place of beginning. The size of the lots, streets, and alleys is marked in figures. The said piece of land is the private property of the undersigned. [Signed] LUTHER CHALLISS.' Said plat and description were duly acknowledged on the same day, and recorded in said office March 30, 1859, on page 23 of Plat-Book, but error occurred in recording the same by which the land was described as being in the north-east quarter of said section 6, instead of the north-west quarter thereof. "(2) On November 18, 1858, said Luther C. Challiss caused another map or plat to be filed in said office, marked L. C. Challiss' Addition to the City of Atchison;' the part of the description on the back thereof which related to the land platted being as follows, namely: The within plat of my addition to the city of Atchison is laid off and composed of all the north-east quarter of section 1, township 6 south, of range 20 east, except that part of the north side which was originally laid off into lots by the Atchison Town Company; and all of that part of the northwest quarter of section 6, township 6, range 21, which was not laid off into lots by said company on the west side of said quarter section. This plat and description were signed L. C. CHALLISS,' and acknowledged on the 1859, on page 25 of Plat-Book. "(3) Said plat of March 15, 1858, described twelve blocks,-those numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 being full and regular. Block 1 was divided into two parts by Eighth street,lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 being on the east side, and lot 8 on the west side, of said street. Block 10 was fractional, and west of block 9 across Eighth street; and block 12 was fractional, and west of block 7 across Eighth street. Blocks 10, 11, and 12 were not subdivided into lots. All other blocks were subdivided into lots. In said plat of November 18, 1858, said blocks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were identical with the blocks of the same numbers upon said plat of March 15, 1858, the same, together with the lots, street, and alleys remaining unchanged; but that part lying west of Eighth street, being lots 8 and 9, was ignored or disregarded as a part of block 1, and became lot 1 of block 18. New territory was added to said blocks 10 and 11 as they existed by the plat of March 15, 1858, and they were extended further west, but they were not subdivided into lots. Block 12 of first-named plat was also extended further westward into the new territory, and it was subdivided into lots. Block 13, and all other blocks of higher number consecutively up to number 55, inclusive, except said small part of block 18, were new territory, additional to that described in said plat of March 15, 1858. All of the territory in the plat of March 15, 1858, was included in the subsequent plat of November 18, 1858, and no part of the lots in controversy in this action was included in said plat of March 15, 1858. "(4) The territory platted and described as L. C. Challiss' addition to the city of Atchison' by said plat of November 18, 1858, has been commonly known as 'Challiss' addition to the city of Atchison,' and there has never been platted in said county of Atchison any addition by the name of Challiss, other than by the two plats of March 15, 1858, and November 18, 1858, respectively, hereinbefore described; and for several years all of said blocks numbered 1 to 55, inclusive, and the subdivision of the same into lots, were described on the taxrolls of Atchison county as Challiss' Addition,' and sometimes by the abbreviation 'C. A.;' and in the years 1874 and 1875 all of said blocks and lots were described on said tax-rolls as being in Challiss' Addition,' there being no property described for said years on said tax-rolls as in L. C. Challiss' Addition.' "(5) In 1873 and 1874 the plaintiff was the owner in fee-simple of lot 1, block 35, and lot 1, block 36, all in L. C. Challiss' addition to the city of Atchison, aforesaid. and he has ever since been such owner except as against the tax claim and tax deeds hereinafter mentioned, and said lots were subject to taxation in the year 1874, and they have been so subject to taxation ever since. "(6) In 1874 said lots were assessed by George W. Graves, who was the assessor of said city of Atchison, and the addition thereto; but the affidavit returned with the assessment roll was defective in form, no venne being stated therein, and the same being in other respects irregular. The following is a copy thereof: I, G. W. Graves, do solemnly swear that the return to which this is attached contains a description of each parcel of real property within the city of Atchison, so far as I have been able to ascertain the same, and that the values attached to said parcels in said return, as I verily believe, is the true value for the purposes of taxation; so help me God. [Signed] GEORGE W. GRAVES. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6 day of July, 1874. [Seal of Atchison county.] C. H. KREBS. Co. Clerk.' for the aforesaid county was published in said Weekly Champion for four consecutive weeks, commencing July 24, 1875, and ending August 14, 1875, inclusive. [Signed] T. J. WARDELL. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of August, 1875. [Atchison County Court Seal.] Atchison, Kansas. CHAS. H. KREBS, Co. Clerk. S. H. KIMBALL, Deputy.' "(8) On August 14, 1875, the Atchison Savings Bank was, and ever since said time it has been, a banking corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of this state relating to savings banks, with its place of business at Atchison, in Atchison county, Kan., and with Richard A. Park as its cashier. One Henry Jacobs had built Icertain sidewalks in said city of Atchison, then a city of the second class, along certain lots, including those in controversy in this action, and said city on said day caused to be issued and delivered to him nine certain written evidences of indebtedness, called Sidewalk Bonds,' a copy of one of which is as follows: 28.50. Sidewalk Bond. No. 301. 1875. The city of Atchison, state of Kansas, to the treasurer of the city of Atchison: Pay to Henry Jacobs, or order, the sum of twenty-eight 50-100 dollars only, out of the money in the treasury collected for assessments made in the year 1875 on all lot one, block thirty-five, Challiss' addition, for making sidewalks along said described property. [Seal of City.] By order of the city council, C. ROHR, Mayor. Attest: N. A. MAHER, Clerk.' Another of said sidewalk bonds' was in all respects the same as the foregoing, except that it was numbered 303, and the property described was lot 1, block 36, Challiss' addition. And the other seven bonds were of like tenor and effect, except that they were upon other lots in said city. On August 6, 1875, said Henry Jacobs took said bonds to said cashier at said bank, and sold them to said bank through said cashier, and indorsed them in blank, and said bonds were paid for with the funds of the bank, and were placed among its securities; said Richard A. Park never claiming any individual interest therein, nor any interest except as an officer of said bank. "(7) The taxes levied upon said lot 1, block 35, for said year 1874 were $9.26, and the three penalties before sale were $1.38, making a total of taxes and penalties of $10.64; and the taxes levied upon said lot 1, block 36, for said year 1874 were $9.81, and the three penalties before sale were $1.47, making a total of taxes and penalties of $11.28. Said taxes were not paid, and on September 16, 1875, both of the lots were offered separately for sale by the county treasurer, but, no person bidding thereon, the county treasurer bid each of them off for the the county of Atchison,-said lot 1, block 35, for the sum of $10.84, and said lot 1, block 36, for $11.48,-leaving for costs of advertising and sale of said lots 20 cents in each. Said lots were advertised for said tax sale as being in Challiss' Addition,' (not in 'L. C. Challiss' Addition,') the sale-notice being as follows: TAX SALE NOTICE. OFFICE CO. TREASURER, ATCHISON, KAS., July 8, 1875. Notice is hereby given that the following-described property, or so much of each tract as may be necessary for the purpose, will on the first Tuesday of September, 1875, and the next succeeding day, be sold by me at public auction at this office for the delinquent taxes and charges thereon of the year 1874, unless the same shall be previously paid. [Signed] M. QUIGG, Co. Treasurer.' (Here follows the description of lands and lots.) Attached to the notice is the proof of the publication, which is the "(9) The lots in controversy were vacant only proof of the publication of said notice and unoccupied until about one month before on file in the office of the county clerk, (and this action was commenced, and on May 8, there is no proof in the office of the county 1877, not having been redeemed from said treasurer,) and no other evidence of publica- sale of 1874, and not having been assigned, tion of said notice was given on the trial; and the taxes of 1875 and 1876 not having said proof so filed in the office of the county been paid, said Richard A. Park, acting in clerk (without date or indorsement of filing) his own name, but for the bank, took an asbeing as follows: OFFICE OF THE COUNTY signment of the tax-sale certificates on each CLERK, ATCHISON COUNTY, KANSAS.- of said sales, turning in said sidewalk bonds ATCHISON, KANSAS, August 16, 1875. I, T. to cover the sidewalk tax of 1875 and interJ. Wardell, business manager of the Atchi-est, the cost of redemption for taxes of son Weekly Champion, a weekly newspaper, 1874 and 1875 on lot 1, block 35, being and the official paper of Atchison county, $71.87; and on lot 1, block 36, being $73.97, and published in the city of Atchison, Kan--and at the same time said Richard A. sas, a newspaper of general circulation in Park, for and with the funds of the bank, said county, certify that the annexed tax-sale paid the taxes of 1876 on said two lots,notice dated Treasury Office, July 8, 1875, being on lot 1, block 35, $6.45; and on lot 1, block 36, $7.15,—which amounts were indorsed in the certificates of assignment. At the same time Richard A. Park in like manner took the assignment of certain other lots on which he held such sidewalk bonds, so that the total amount of such assignments, including the indorsed taxes of 1876, was $701.88, while said sidewalk bonds turned in amounted only to $363. The balance of $338.88 was paid in cash out of the funds of the bank, and said certificates of assignment were placed among the securities of the bank, and charged to it, and not to said Richard A. Park. "(13) On December 20, 1878, said bank paid the first half of the taxes of 1878 on said lots,-being on lot 1, biock 35, $2.00; and on lot 1, block 36, $2.62. And on June 20, 1879, said bank paid the second half of the taxes for 1878 on said lots,- being on lot 1, block 35, $2.00; and on lot 1, block 36, $2.63. On December 20, 1879, said bank paid the first half of the taxes of 1879 on said lots,- being on lot 1, block 35, $2.07; and on lot 1, block 36, $2.32. And on June 20, 1880, said bank paid the second half of the taxes for 1879 on said lot 1, block 35,— being $2.07. But the bank did not pay the "(10) On December 22, 1877, said Richard second half of the taxes of 1879 on said lot 1, A. Park, for said bank, and out of its funds, block 36,-being $2.32,- the same having paid the taxes of 1877 on said lots,- being been paid by said L. C. Challiss, June 15, 1880. on lot 1, block 35, $6.56; and on lot 1, block It further appears that on June 15, 1880, said 36, $7.29,-and said amounts were indorsed L. C. Challiss paid the full taxes for 1879 on on the respective certificates of assignment. said lots,-being on lot 1, block 35, $4.14; and "(11) The notice of expiration of time for on lot 1, block 36, $4.64, including the $2.32 redemption published by the county treas- before mentioned. And on December 20, urer on said sales read as follows: NOTICE. 1880, said L. C. Challiss paid the first half of OFFICE COUNTY TREASURER, ATCHISON the taxes of 1880 on said lots,-being on lot Co., ATCHISON, KANSAS, April 1, 1878. No-1, block 35, $23.53; and on lot 1, block 36, tice is hereby given that the following described lands and town lots situate in Atchison county, state of Kansas, were sold for delinquent taxes, penalties, and charges for the year 1874, at a sale commenced September 7, and closed September 16, 1875. Unless such lands and lots, owned by parties unknown, shall be redeemed before the days limited therefor as specified, they will be conveyed to the purchaser. Given under my hand, the day and year above written. [Signed] S. R. WASHER, Treasurer Atchison Co. (Here follows a description of the unredeemed lands and town lots, including the lands in controversy, under date of September 16, 1878, and as being in Challiss' Addition,' not L. C. Challiss' Addition;' the cost of redemption being stated as follows: On lot 1, block 35, $120; and on lot 1, block 36, $123.18.) Said notice was published in the Patriot, the official weekly newspaper, on April 6, April 13. April 20, April 27, and May 4, 1878; and affidavit was made thereto, and filed in the office of the county clerk May 6, 1878. "(12) On September 23, 1878, said Richard A. Park assigned each of said certificates of assignment to said Atchison Savings Bank, and on September 24, 1878, at his request as cashier of said bank, the county clerk of said county of Atchison executed and delivered to said bank, and in its name, for it and its successors and assigns, a separate tax deed upon each of said lots for the taxes of 1874, 1875, 1876, and 1877; the consideration recited in each deed being as follows: For lot 1, block 35, Challiss' addition, $84.88; and for lot 1, block 36, Challiss' addition, $88.41. Said deeds were duly acknowledged, and they were each recorded in the office of the register of deeds of said county of Atchison, September 25, 1878. The costs of deeds and recording same was $5.40, being $2.70 each. $23.53. "(14) The second half of the taxes on said lots for 1880 not being paid, the lots were sold separately at tax sale by the county treasurer, September 6, 1881, to F. T. Walker, said lot 1, block 35, for $24.90; and said lot 1, block 36, for $24.90. On March 29, 1883, said F. T. Walker paid the taxes of 1882 on said lot 1, block 35, and the same was indorsed on his certificate of sale. The taxes on said lot 1, block 36, for 1881, $5.19, and for 1882, $5.75, were paid by said F. T. Walker, and duly indorsed on his certificate of sale. On August 15, 1883, said L. C. Challiss redeemed said lots from said sales and taxes indorsed, by paying into the county treasury in cash an amount equal to the cost of redemption, and cost of the redemption certificate; the amount so paid on said lot 1, block 35, being $44.95, and on said lot 1, block 36, $49.45. "(15) Before June 2, 1883, said F. T. Walker bad sold and transferred the two taxsale certificates referred to in conclusion of fact 14 to said Atchison Savings Bank, and said bank was the owner and holder thereof. And on or shortly before said date said bank entered into an arrangement with L. F. Bird and H. M. Jackson, defendants, both attorneys at law in Atchison, whereby they agreed to get as much as they could out of said two lots for said bank on account of said two tax deeds, and said two tax certificates so held by said bank, and in consideration of their services said L. F. Bird and H. M. Jackson were to receive 15 per cent. of the amount realized, and they were to pay the remaining 85 per cent. to said bank. And as a part of said arrangement said bank, by its proper officers, executed a deed of conveyance of said two lots on June 2, 1883, to said H. M. Jackson; and said deed was duly delivered to said H. M. Jackson, who filed the same for record in the office of the register of deeds of this · county on June 5, 1883. Said H. M. Jack-| deeds that under the recent decisions of this son paid nothing for said deed, nor for said lots, and never agreed to pay anything therefor, except as he was to pay 85 per cent. of the amount realized as aforesaid. The two tax-sale certificates purchased by said bank from said F. T. Walker were by the same arrangement placed in the hands of said L. F. Bird by said bank. About August 3, 1883, said H. M. Jackson and L. F. Bird took actual possession of said lots, by fencing up and using each of the same, said lots having theretofore been always vacant and unoccupied. "(16) On July 30, 1884, said L. F. Bird, for and on behalf of said bank, and under the arrangement stated in conclusion of fact 15, applied to the county treasurer for the redemption money paid in by said L. C. Challiss, August 15, 1883, as stated in conclusion of fact 14, and said L. F. Bird received the same for said bank,-the amount being $93.90. "(17) On March 20, 1884, said L. C. Challiss paid the taxes on said lots for 1883,-being on lot 1, block 35, $8.43; and on lot 1, block 36, $4.67. "(18) Said bank did not purchase said taxsale certificates and obtain said deeds with a view of using said real estate for any of the purposes of the bank, but for the purposes of investment and profitable speculation only. 66 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. "(1) At the commencement of this action, and at the time the plaintiff filed his supplemental reply, the plaintiff was the owner of the real estate in controversy, and the defendants unlawfully kept him out of the possession of the same. court are fatal, and hence they are the only ones that need now to be noticed; and they are, that there are sums included in the taxes for which the lots were sold that were not charges against them and were in excess of the proper taxes upon the lots, and a sufficient time was not given for redemption. There was included in the amount for which the lots were sold a charge of 10 cents on each lot for publishing the delinquent taxlist and notice of sale. The taxes levied upon lot 1, block 35, for the year 1874 were $9.26, and the three penalties before the sale amounted to $1.38; making a total of taxes and penalties of $10.64. The taxes levied upon lot 1, block 36, for the year 1874 were $9.81, and the three penalties before the sale were $1.47; making a total of taxes and penalties of $11.28. At the tax sale the county treasurer bid them off for the county of Atchison,-lot 1, block 35, for the sum of $10.84, and lot 1, block 36, for $11.48. This statement conclusively shows that there was added to the taxes and penalties the sum of 10 cents on each lot for the treasurer's fee for the certificate of sale, and 10 cents on each lot for publication fees for advertising notice of tax sale. The only proof of publication of the notice of sale was found in the county clerk's office,there being no proof of publication found in the county treasurer's office, and no other proof of publication was offered on the trial but that found in the county clerk's office, and that was without date or indorsement of filing. This consisted of an affidavit attached to the notice of publication made by T. J. Wardell as business manager of the Atchison Champion, on the 16th day of August, 1875. The tax law requires the proof of publication to be transmitted to the county treasurer imme "(2) The plaintiff is entitled to recover the real estate in controversy, and costs of suit. "(3) The defendants are not entitled to any relief under the answer and cross-peti-diately after the publication thereof; and, if tion of said H. M. Jackson." said proof is not transmitted within 14 days There are specific objections to the validity after the last publication, the printer shall of the tax deeds, and they consist of: First. not be paid for such publication. No proof The lots are described in the tax-rolls as be- of publication is found in the county treasing in "Challiss' Addition," when, as a mat-urer's office, and the costs of advertising the ter of fact, the addition was platted as "L. C. Challiss' Addition;" but it has been commonly called and known as "Challiss' Addition." Second. In 1874 these lots were assessed by George W. Graves as city assessor, and it is claimed that the affidavit to the return of the assessor states no venue, and is defective in other respects. Third. That there was an overcharge in the amount of the costs of the tax sale of each of the two lots. Fourth. That the tax-sale notice was defective in the description of the property as being in "Challiss' Addition," instead of in "L. C. Chailiss' Addition." Fifth. That there is no proof of the publication of the notice of tax sale on file in the office of the county treasurer, and the proof on file in the office of the county clerk is without date or indorsement of filing, and is otherwise defective. 1. There are two objections to the tax lots never became a charge against the county, and, if the fees for advertising the sale never became a charge against the county, it cannot become a charge against the lots, and the tax deeds are void. This is settled by the cases of Fox v. Cross, 39 Kan. 350, 18 Pac. Rep. 300, and Blanchard v. Hatcher, 40 Kan. 20 Pac. Rep. 15. The notice of redemption was as follows: "OFFICE OF COUNTY TREASURER, ATCHISON CO., ATCHISON, KAS., April 1, 1878. Notice is hereby given that the following-described lands and town lots situate in Atchison county, state of Kansas, were sold for delinquent taxes, penalties, and charges for the year 1874, at a sale commenced September 7, and closed September 16, 1875. Unless such lands and lots, owned by parties unknown, shall be redeemed before the days limited therefor as specified, they will be conveyed to the purchaser. Given under my hand the day and year above written. [Signed] S. R. WASH-| the first half of the taxes of 1878, and on ER, Treasurer Atchison Co." The owner has June 20, 1879, paid the second half of the three years from the day of sale to redeem, taxes of 1878. On the 20th day of Decem(section 127, Tax Law,) and it has been uni-ber, 1879, the bank paid the first half of the versally held by this court that such a notice taxes of 1879 on said lots, and on the 20th was fatally defective. It is not specific, defi- day of June, 1880, the bank paid the second nite, or correct. Adopting the language of half of the taxes on lot 1, block 35, but did BREWER, J., in the case of Blackistone v. not pay the second half of the taxes on lot 1, Sherwood, 31 Kan. 35, 2 Pac. Rep. 874, block 36, for 1879, the sum having been paid "Who can tell from this notice alone when by L. C. Challiss on the 15th day of June, the time of redemption will expire?" On the 1880. It further appears that L. C. Challiss 7th of September, or on the 16th day of that paid the full taxes for the year 1879 on both month? The day of sale is not specified as lots, on the 15th day of June, 1880. On the the statute requires. The record shows that 20th day of December, 1880, Challiss paid the sale of these lots for delinquent taxes oc- the first half of the taxes of that year on both curred on the 16th day of September, 1875. lots. The second half of the taxes of 1880 In the computation of the statutory period not having been paid by any one, the lots within which a redemption from sale could were sold separately at the tax sale, by the be made, the day of sale must be excluded. county treasurer, September 6, 1881, to F. See, generally, the cases of Hollenback v. T. Walker. He paid the taxes of 1881 and Ess, 31 Kan. 87, 1 Pac. Rep. 275; English v. 1882. On the 15th day of August, 1883, L. Williamson, 34 Kan. 212, 8 Pac. Rep. 214;| C. Challiss redeemed the lots from the sale to Cable v. Coates, 36 Kan. 191, 12 Pac. Rep. Walker, paying on lot 1, block 35, $44.95, 931; Hill v. Timmermeyer, 36 Kan. 252, 13 and on lot 1, block 36, $49.45. Before the Pac. Rep. 211. 2d day of June, 1883, Walker had assigned the two tax-sale certificates held by him to the Atchison Savings Bank, and about that time the bank had made an agreement with the plaintiffs in error, both attorneys at law in the city of Atchison, whereby they agreed to get as much as they could out of said two lots for said bank on account of said two tax deeds and said two tax certificates, and in consideration of their services were to receive 15 per cent. of the amount realized, and pay the remaining 85 per cent. to the bank. As a part of this arrangement, deeds were executed by the bank to H. M. Jackson, conveying the lots to him, and the two certilicates of sale were delivered to L. F. Bird. They paid nothing to the bank for the deeds or certificates, nor ever agreed to pay anything, except as above recited. On the 30th day of July, 1884, Bird, for and on behalf of the bank, and under the arrangement stated, applied to the county treasurer for the redemption money paid in by Challiss on the 15th of August, 1883, and received the money for said bank from the county treasurer, amounting to $93.90. 2. The only remaining question is as to whether the plaintiffs in error are entitled to relief under the answer and cross-petition of H. M. Jackson. This prayed that, in the event that said tax deeds or either of them be adjudged to be invalid, then the taxes and charges so paid under said invalid deed or deeds, and since that time, and the value of the improvements made on said lots by the tax purchasers, may be adjudged a first lien upon said lots, respectively, and that the plaintiff be adjudged to pay the same before he is let into the possession of said lots. The judgment of the court below was that the tax purchasers or their assigns were not entitled to such relief. No specific reason is given for this conclusion, and we are left to gather from the facts alone the considerations upon which it was made. The first supposition that can be indulged in as tending to support the judgment in this respect is because the Atchison Savings Bank, a corporation organized under article 16, c. 23, Gen. St., has no authority or power to take a tax deed. Admitting this to be true, and yet there is such a failure of title by reason of it that the bank is protected by the sweeping and vigorous terms of section 142 of the tax law, and the construction universally given that and a similar provision by this court in the cases of Smith v. Smith, 15 Kan. 290; Fairbanks v. Williams, 24 Kan. 16; Coe v. Farwell, Id. 566; Estes v. Stebbins, 25 Kan. 315; Arn v. Hoppin, Id. 707; Russell v. Hudson, 28 Kan. 99; Belz v. Bird, 31 Kan. 139, 1 Pac. Rep. 246. The only remaining reason for such a conclusion of law is founded on this state of facts: On the 24th day of September, 1878, the county clerk issued to the Atchison Savings Bank a separate tax deed to each of said lots for the delinquent taxes of 1874, and this included the taxes of 1875, 1876, and 1877. On the 20th day of December, 1878, the bank paid The It is claimed on these facts as found by the trial court that these plaintiffs in error, as representatives of the bank, are estopped in this action from asserting title to these lots, and are estopped from asserting any lien on the premises by reason of their tax deeds for the taxes of 1874 and the subsequent years for which they paid the taxes. argument in support of this contention is founded on sections 127 and 130 of the tax law. Only the owner may redeem, and only the owner of the tax-sale certificate is entitled to demand and receive the redemption money; and, to entitle him to receive this redemption money, he must surrender his claim on the land. He cannot claim both to be the owner and to be entitled to the redemption money; hence when Bird, as the representative of the bank, applied for and |