Maina

Brown was under no obligation to pay the tax, and the rule laid down in Coppinger v. Rice ( 33 Cal. 425 ), does not apply to the facts of the present case.

In Anderson v. Rider ( 46 Cal. 137 ), it was held that the sheriff’s deed was not void because the purchase-money was not paid for several months after the sale, there being—as in the case at bar—no stipulation for credit between the sheriff and purchaser.

*11 The certificate of purchase, which was executed when the money was paid, took effect by relation as of the date of the sale, and the deed of the sheriff, made six months after the sale, was not void. But the doctrine of relation can never be made operative to deprive one of a substantial right, which could not have been effectively exercised until after the execution of the instrument or happening of the event, which is held to take effect at or to have relation to the prior date.

The court below found that within six months after the payment of the money to the sheriff, defendant, Fred Elliott, deposited with or paid to the sheriff a sufficient sum to redeem the property. Until the purchaser had paid the money it is clear that he was not entitled to receive the…