Pierce

It does not appear from the pleadings or from the evidence in this case how much of the money offered to be paid on behalf of the defendants to plaintiff was on behalf of the defendant Gove, nor how much on behalf of the defendant Hyde. If the money was tendered on behalf of Hyde, doubtless plaintiff would be entitled to the benefit of his purchase under the execution sale; and if the money, or any part of it, was tendered on behalf of the defendant Gove, she would be entitled to be subrogated to plaintiff’s position as against Hyde, and have a lien, superior to the execution sale, on the Hyde share of the land,' to secure her for the *146 money paid by her to relieve her interest from Hyde’s debt, In either event plaintiff would be entitled to retain the sheriff’s certificate and any title he might have acquired thereby, to the extent of any surplus of the Hyde interest above the holding of the defendant Gove, harmless of Hyde’s debt.

If the decree for the conveyance by plaintiff had been confined to the interest of the defendant Gove, the plaintiff could not have objected; but as the case is presented to us, the decree as it is would deprive plaintiff of a legal right. From the…