Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/246

 234 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the real estate was in fact the property of tfae complamant's husband, Eobert J, Douglas, although the deed had, for fraudulent purposes, been taken in the name of the wife; that it had been seized under a writ of foreign attachment issued against the husband for his debta, and his interest therein sold by auditors appointed in the attachment' pro- ceedings, and a title given to other parties. But there was no evidence to support these allegations in regard to the ownership of the husband, and it is hardly necessary to say that the wife's title cannot be successfully defeated, except by some proceeding in -which she is a party, and has the right and opportunity to be heard. �We are, then, brought to consider whether the complain- ant, as owner, has the r-ight to redeem the property described ; and, if so, what amount of money is necessary to be paid for the redemption. The sixty-fourth section of the act to revise and amend the charter of the city of Camden, approved Feb- ruary 14, 1871, (Pam. L. 1871, p. 210,) makes ail taxes and assessments a lien upon the real estate for five years after the same shall have been assessed, and authorizes the city council, on failure of the owner to pay and satisfy the fuU amount of such tax or assessment, to sell the premises at public auction for the shortest time, not exceeding 100 years for unimproved property, and 50 years for improved prop- erty, and to execute, under the seal of the city, a declaration of sale to such purchaser. The sixty-fifth section reserves to the owner the right of redemption, within two years from the date of sale, on the payment of the purchase money, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum, to be com- puted from the day of sale, and ail the expenses and chargea necessarily incurred thereon by the purchase aforesaid. �The bill of complaint contains several vague allegations about tenders by the husband of the complainant in her behalf, but only two are specifically stated, — one on the fifth of May, 1873, and the other on the thirty-flrst of October, 1874, — both of which are within two years of the date of sale •of ail the property, except the lot on Cherry street, which the defendant claims to have purchased February 27, 1862, ��� �