important is this matter of confirmation of sale that the sheriff's deed will not give title to the purchaser at a judicial sale if the sale has not been confirmed as required by the statute.* Sec. 156. The irregularities that are and are not corrected by the confirmation-The procedure. Mere irregularity in the proceedings connected with a sheriff's sale are cured by order of court, made some considerable time after confirming the sale; but matters which are not mere irregularity, or which form no part of the proceedings connected with the sale, or, for instance, fraudulent combinations which might prevent a fair and equitable sale, and matters relative to the ownership of the property sold, are not cured, or finally or conclusively determined by the order confirming the sale. Irregularity affecting a sheriff's sale may be examined in the district court on motion to confirm the sale or set aside the sale. Some of the irregularities may also be re-examined in the district court by procedure under the statute; and all such irregularities, so far as they are shown by the record, may be re-examined by petition in error in the Supreme Court; and in some particular cases of fraud and irregularity, parties may have an action in the district court, in the nature of a suit in equity to set aside the sheriff's sale, and for such other and further relief as justice and equity may authorize. But whatever remedy the aggrieved party may choose, he must resort to the same within proper and reasonable time.83 The sale may not be set aside where land is advertised to be sold for cash in pursuance of a judgment of foreclosure, and the sheriff accepts a certified check as cash, which is afterwards paid, the acceptance of the certified check for cash is not, of itself, a sufficient reason to defeat the sale.84 V. Wick, 15 O. S. 548; Lemert v. 83 Capital v. Huntoon, 35 Kan. 577, 11 Pac. 369. 84 Sheldon v. Preussner, 52 Kan. 593, 35 Pac. 204. * Where there was mere inadequacy in price, or where the newspaper containing the sale notice, though circulated to all the subscribers, failed to reach the publishers of other papers to whom it was sent in exchange; where the proceedings prior to and at a sheriff's sale of real estate were regular, and in conformity with the foreclosure judgment, and no extrinsic facts affecting the validity of sale were shown in support of the motion to set the same aside, it was held error to sustain said motion; 85 it has been held that while mere *Cowles v. Phoenix, 63 Kan. 883, 65 Pac. 217. 85 Condon v. Wood, 7 Kan. App. 577, 52 Pac. 63. The judgment of a district court foreclosing a mortgage on real estate, in which appraisement was waived, directed that no order of sale should be issued to enforce it until the expiration of six months after the day it was entered. Six days before the expiration of that time, an order of sale was issued to the sheriff, who, after the expiration of six months from the entry of the judgment, advertised and sold the mortgaged premises without appraisement to the mortgagee and plaintiff in the judgment. The sheriff made return of his proceedings under the order, and the court afterwards confirmed the sale and directed a deed to be executed to the purchaser, which was done. No proceedings have been taken by the defendants in the judgment to set aside the order of sale or the proceedings under it, nor have proceedings been taken to reverse, vacate, or set aside the order confirming the sale. Soon after the execution and delivery of the sheriff's deed, the purchaser, without objection from the defendants in the judgment, took possession of the mortgaged premises and has ever since been in possession of them. After the execution of the mortgage, and before the commencement of the suit to foreclose it, the mortgagors conveyed to C their interest in a portion of the mortgaged premises, and she was not made a party to the foreclosure suit. Held: (1) That although this order of sale was prematurely issued, the proceedings of the sheriff under it, taken after six months from the date of the judgment, were not void, but both the order of sale and the proceedings under it were voidable, and could have been set aside in the court in which the judgment was entered, by proceedings for that purpose by the defendants in the judgment, taken at any time before the confirmation of the sale. (2) That after the confirmation of the sale so made the order of sale and all proceedings under it must be held legal and valid, and further, that the deed executed to the purchaser at the said sale, conveyed to him all of the title and interest of the mortgagors to the premises described in the mortgage and judg ment. (3) That the right of C in that portion of the mortgaged premises conveyed to her by the inadequacy of price alone is not sufficient to justify a court in setting aside a sheriff's sale of real estate, yet, when the equities of the party moving to set aside the sale are strong, and it fairly appears that such party was prevented by accident and mistake, and without negligence, from attending the sale, the ruling of the court setting aside the sale, on condition that a reasonable bid be made at a resale, will not be disturbed.86 The sale will be set aside where the lands are sold at a sheriff's sale for a price so grossly inadequate as to be little more than a nominal consideration, and there is a very slight additional circumstance indicative of bad faith on the part of the bidders, or of a combination among bidders; 87 and also where interested parties attack the title of property offered at a judicial sale in such a way as to deter bidders and depress values, and where the price paid for the property is greatly inadequate.88 mortgagors was a right to redeem the land so conveyed from the lien of the mortgage, and as she was not a party to the foreclosure suit, the right was in no way affected by the foreclosure and sale. Cross v. Knox, 33 Kan. 725, 5 Pac. 32. 86 Nolfert v. Milford, 5 Kan. App. 922. 87 Iona v. Blair, 56 Kan. 430, 43 Pac. 686. While the judgment debtors are ordinarily necessary parties in this court to a review of the rulings of the district court confirming or setting aside a sale of lands under a decree of foreclosure, where the sale is for a grossly inadequate price, and one of the plaintiffs in error offers to bid many times the amount for which the land was sold, and the sale was made prior to the passage of the Act of 1893, known as the "Redemption Law," so that it can be clearly seen that no injury can result to the judgment debtors, the rulings of the district court may be reviewed without their having been made parties. Ibid. 88 Wood v. Drury, 56 Kan. 409, 43 Pac. 763. A return of a sheriff on an order for the sale of land, which fails to show that notice of the sale for the time and in the manner required by law was duly given, is irregular; and the irregularity is not entirely cured by an accompanying affidavit of the printer showing the essential facts omitted from the return. Where the sale was made at a wholly inadequate price, it is error to confirm it on such defective return. 59 Kan. 160, 52 Pac. 419. Where an execution was issued July 10, 1860, and a sale of real estate made under it, held, that under the Act of February 27, 1860, entitled, "An act relating to sales of real property," absence in the sheriff's return of evidence that at least five days' Sec. 157. The sheriff's deed to the purchaser. The sheriff, or other officer, who, upon such writ or writs of execution, shall sell said lands and tenements, or any part thereof, shall make to the purchaser as good and sufficient deed of conveyance of the lands sold as the person or persons, against whom such writ or writs of execution were issued, could have made of the same, at, or any time after they became liable on the judgment. The deed shall be sufficient evidence of the legality of such sale, and the proceedings therein, until the contrary is proved, and shall vest in the purchaser as good and as perfect an estate in the premises therein mentioned as was vested in the party, at, or after, the time when such lands and tenements became liable to the satisfaction of the judgment. And such deed of conveyance, to be made by the sheriff or other officer, shall recite the execution or executions, or the substance thereof, and the names of the parties, the amount and date of rendition of each judgment by virtue whereof the said lands and tenements were sold, as aforesaid, and shall be executed, acknowledged and recorded as is or may be provided by law to perfect the conveyances of real estate in other cases.$9 notice of sale to the person to whom the lands belonged had been given, rendered it insufficient." Koehler v. Ball, 2 Kan. 160. 89 Snyder, 5,984; Wilson, 4,650; Kansas, 459 (1889), identical; Nebraska, 1,502 (1907), identical; Ohio Gen. Code, Sec. 11,693 (1910), similar. The acknowledgment of a sheriff's deed is indispensable, and such acknowledgment will not be presumed. Roades v. Symmes, 1 Ohio, 281. Sheriff's deed good though not reciting all the statute requires. Lessee v. Dibble, 10 Ohio, 434. Where sheriff's deed recites so much of the execution and other proceedings as shows clearly the nature and authority for its execu tion, such recitals are sufficient. Lessee v. McCoy, 8 Ohio, 128. A levy and sale of land upon execution will confer title, and a prior assignment of the property made by the judgment debtor to the creditor to secure a debt which has not been acknowledged or recorded. Fordick v. Barr, 2 O. S. 471. As to when sheriff's deed takes effect, see Zashenosky v. Voliaith, 59 O. S. 540; Lessee v. Longworth, 11 Ohio, 236. Mistake in deed may be shown by parol. Gill v. Pelky, 54 O. S. 348; Lessee v. McCoy, 8 Ohio, 128. A court of equity may correct sheriff's deed. Styles v. Widener, 35 0. S. 550. Parol evidence may be introduced to show such mistake. And where the sheriff seizes real estate and sells the same, but the sale is made but a short time after his term expires, his deed to the purchaser will give such equitable title that such purchaser cannot be ejected from the premises.00 Sec. 158. Printer's fee to be advanced, when Officer must demand same, when. The officer who levies upon goods and chattels, or lands and tenements, or who is charged with the duty of selling same, by virtue of any writ of execution, may refuse to publish a notice of the sale thereof, by advertisement in a newspaper, until the party for whose benefit such execution issued, his agent or attorney, shall advance to such officer, so much money as will be sufficient to discharge the fees of the printer for publishing such notice. Before any officer shall be excused from giving the notification, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, he shall demand of the party for whose benefit the execution was issued, his agent or attorney (provided either of them reside in the county), all fees in said action specified."1 Ibid. The purchaser at a sheriff's sale acquires no greater interest than the judgment debtor had at the time the levy and sale was made, and takes the property subject to outstanding equities, especially if the purchaser has notice of these equities. Louth v. Rathbone, 19 Ohio, 21. No other district court except the one issuing the writ may set it aside. Christy v. Springs, 11 Okla. 710, 69 Pac. 864. As to recitals of deed, see Dickens V. Crane, 33 Kan. 344, 6 Pac. 630. Such deed a nullity where the mortgage is paid during proceedings to foreclose. Cerly v. Moran, 58 Kan. 278, 49 Pac. 82. Afteracquired title does not inure to the benefit of the purchaser. Westheimer v. Reed, 19 N. W. (Neb.) 626. Purchasers in proper case may compel deed from sheriff. Lamb v. Sherman, 28 N. W. (Neb.) 319. Deed will issue after death of purchaser. Cronkhite v. Buchanan, 59 Kan. 541, 53 Pac. 863. 90 Head v. Daniels, 38 Kan. 1, 15 Pac. 911. 91 Snyder, 5,985 and 5,986; Wilson, 4,651 and 4,652; Kansas, 4,906 (1901), identical; Ohio Gen. Code, Sec. 11,695 (1910), similar. |