tax, be levied on, for, or on account of, any moneys that now are, or may hereafter be, by them collected or received in their official capacity, the property so levied on may be sold without valuation.54

Sec. 152. The legal notice of sale under the execution.

Lands and tenements taken on execution cannot be sold until the officer cause public notice of the time and place of sale to be given, for at least thirty days before the day of sale, by advertisement in some newspaper printed in the county, or, in case no newspaper be printed in the county, in some newspaper in general circulation therein, and by putting up an advertisement upon the courthouse door, and in five other public places in the county, two of which shall be in the township where such lands and tenements lie. All sales made without such advertisement shall be set aside, on motion, by the court to which the execution is returnable.55

The statute nowhere requires that the legal notice of the sale should state either the name of the execution debtor or creditor, and when there is an omission from such notice of their names, it will not affect the validity of the sale.56

The sale will not be disturbed because the notice fails to state the exact hour of the sale; 57 nor will the sale be disturbed because in the notice of publication a defendant,

54 Snyder, 5,981; Wilson, 4,647; Ohio Gen. Code, Sec. 11,680 (1910), identical.

55 Snyder, 5,982; Wilson, 4,648; Kansas, 1,905 (1901), identical; Nebraska, 1,498 (1907), identical. Notice in daily legal news sufficient. Hester v. Coldron, 116 Pac. (Okla.) 787; Railton v. Laeder, 126 Ill. 219; 18 N. E. 555; Lynn v. Allen, 145 Ind. 584, 44 N. E. 646. Since writing the above the Supreme Court of this State has decided that the posting is required

only in case where no newspaper is printed in the county. McLaughlin v. Houston, 120 Pac. (Okla.) 659.

56 McLean v. Kelly, 11 Okla. 26, 66 Pac. 282; Chapman v. Merrill, 19 Hun, 318; Harrison v. Cochelm, 35 Mo. 79.

57 Northrup v. Cooper, 23 Kan. 432. In this case the notice stated the sale to be between the hours of ten o'clock a. m. and four o'clock p. m. of a specific day.

whose name was Elizabeth D. Borthwick, was described as Elizabeth D. Bothwick.58

60

In computing the time in which the notice is to be published, the statutory rule of this State, that the day of the first publication is to be excluded, and the last included, obtains. The words, "for at least thirty days before the day of sale," does not change the rule.59 If one issue of the paper within the statutory time required does not contain the notice of sale, the sale may be avoided. If the newspaper is a weekly, then it must contain the notice each week, and each successive week; if a daily, then in one publication each successive week. The legal sale will be sufficient even where the newspaper is published in the county, but partly printed in another.62 A very interesting case will be found in the note below as to a change in the notice while in the process of publication.63 A decree ordered that land be sold in separate parcels and the notice of the sale did not so state. The sale was sustained.64 But where the sheriff's return failed

61

61 Stevens v. Naylor, 106 N. W. (Neb.) 446.

62 Aetna v. Wortaseuski, 88 N. W. (Neb.) 855.

68 "In pursuance of a judgment of foreclosure, certain real estate was ordered to be sold. A notice was published by the sheriff in a daily paper that the sale would occur on March 9, 1889, and the notice was published in every issue of the paper from February 6, 1889, to March 8, 1889, inclusive, except in the issues of March 6 and 7,

1889. In each of those issues the figure 9 in the notice had been taken out and turned upside down, SO as to somewhat resemble the figure 6. It was found that the alteration in the notice was caused or procured to be made by the defendant, whose property was advertised to be sold, for the purpose of avoiding the sale. Held, on a motion of the defendant to set aside the sale by reason of the defective notice, that a party guilty of such misconduct is not in a position to appeal to the court for assistance in consummating the wrong, and that the court will not aid him in reaping the anticipated fruits of his wrongful conduct." Green v. Carson, 50 Kan. 624, 32 Pac. 380. 64 Fraser v. Seely, 71 Kan. 169, 79 Pac. 1,081.

to show when or for what length of time he had advertised the sale, the sale was voidable.65

A sale of lands made by a sheriff on a day not named in the notice is illegal, and should be set aside notwithstanding the fact that the day named fell on Labor Day and the sale was held on the day following."

Sec. 153. The sheriff's return of his proceedings under the

writ.

Every court has inherent power to correct its own proceedings and records during the term at which they were made. If the sheriff's return does not speak the truth as to the facts of the sale, the court may make such amendments as will make it do so.67 The court, instead of amendment, may, in a proper case, vacate and set aside such sale.

68

The sheriff's return that the property was sold by him at public auction implies that it was disposed of to the highest bidder, and a sheriff's notice of sale, which did not recite that the lands would be sold in separate parcels, was held to be sufficient, although the decree and order of sale provided for several tracts to be sold separately."9

Sec. 154. Confirmation and approval by the court of sheriff's sale of real estate.

If the court upon the return of any writ of execution, for the satisfaction of which any lands or tenements have been

65 Atchinson v. Sledge, 68 Kan. 321, 74 Pac. 1,111.

66 McLaughlin v. Houston, 120 Pac. (Okla.) 659.

67 Payne v. Long, 9 Okla. 683, 6 Pac. 235.

68 Osborne v. Hughery, 14 Okla. 29, 76 Pac. 146.

69 Fraser v. Seely, 71 Kan. 838, 79 Pac. 1,081. "A judgment creditor was represented at the sheriff's sale by her attorney. The debtor's land was bid in by a second mortgagee. The sheriff returned that

the property was sold for 'cash in hand.' The judgment creditor moved to confirm the sale, and, on the hearing, it appeared that the purchaser paid nothing but the costs. The sale was confirmed. Held, that the plaintiff, the judg ment creditor, was estopped from claiming that the judgment debt was not satisfied to the extent of the bid returned by the sheriff, and that the debtor was not prejudiced." Ibid.

sold, shall, after having carefully examined the proceedings of the officer, be satisfied that the sale has, in all respects, been made in conformity to the provisions of this chapter, the court shall direct the clerk to make an entry on the journal that the court is satisfied of the legality of such sale, and an order that the officer make to the purchaser a deed for such lands and tenements; and the officer on making such sale may retain the purchase money in his hands until the court shall have examined his proceedings, as aforesaid, when he shall pay the same to the person entitled thereto, agreeably to the order of the court.70

72

This confirmation relates back to the sale." And where a reasonable bidder at such sale assigns his bid, such assignee has the right by motion, to require the confirmation of the sale, and in such case, the judgment creditor has no right to defeat the confirmation and approval of the sale. Where the sale has been regular in every respect, but the property was sold for a price that was grossly inadequate, the sale will not be disturbed.78 In execution sales of real estate, anyone who claims to be the owner thereof, or has an interest in defeating the title, may, though not a party to the suit, move the court to set aside the sale." The return being regular, it is the duty of the court to confirm the same, and the court may confirm the sale even where the sheriff does not consent to such confirmation. The court may confirm the sale on its own motion.75 The sale is not consummated so as to vest

70 Snyder, 5,983; Wilson, 4,649; Kansas, 458 (1889); Nebraska, 1,500 (1907), identical; Ohio Gen. Code, Secs. 11,688 and 11,689 (1910), identical.

1 Christy v. Springs, 11 Okla. 710, 69 Pac. 864.

Payne v. Long, 9 Okla. 683, 60 Pac. 235.

McLean v. Swofford, 11 Okla. 429, 68 Pac. 502; but see Pickett V. Pickett, 31 Kan. 727, 3 Pac. 549; Wilford v. Milford, 5 Kan. App.

222, 47 Pac. 175; Northrup v. Cooper, 23 Kan. 433.

74 Sparks v. City, 21 Okla. 827, 97 Pac. 575; White Crow v. White Wing, 3 Kan. 276; Harrison V. Andrews, 18 Kan. 537; Branner v. Chapman, 11 Kan. 118; Foreman v. Carter, 9 Kan. 674; Halsey v. Van Vleet, 29 Kan. 501.

75 Adams v. DeValley, 40 Kan. 486, 20 Pac. 239; Ferguson v. Tutt, 8 Kan. 370.

76

the title in the purchaser until the confirmation. The court is not required, on motion for confirmation, to go into the judgment, or execution, further than is necessary to determine whether the officer has properly performed his duty under the writ, nor is the court permitted to decide on the validity of either. The order of confirmation is an adjudication merely that the proceedings of the officer, as they appear of record, are regular, and the direction to the sheriff to complete the sale. If the return of the officer show prima facie that all the requisites of the statute have been complied with, the sale should be confirmed, and a motion cannot be resisted except on the face of the papers.78 No formal motion in writing is required to set aside the sale.79 It is proper for the court to examine the evidence, setting forth the proceedings, especially in a case where the officer's return is not contradicted.80

Sec. 155. When objection to the confirmation of sale should be made.

It is well to observe here that there is a different rule for the action of the court where objection is made prior to the confirmation of the sale of real estate, and where objection is made to such irregularities after the confirmation. objection is made to any irregularity in the proceedings prior to the confirmation, the court may exercise a sound and legal discretion; 81 but an entirely different rule applies where application is made to set aside the sale after confirmation. Here the court must see to it that the judgments and orders of the court are not attacked collaterally. 82 So