Exceptions dismissed without costs. This is an action of tort tried in the Superior Court. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant's bill of exceptions was allowed April 1, 1940. There is nothing in the record to show nor is it contended by the parties, that the case did not then become "ripe for final preparation and printing of the record for the full court." that any extension of time for ordering such preparation and printing was granted by the court or any judge thereof within ten days after the case became "ripe" for such preparation and printing, or that any "order" for such preparation and printing was given by the excepting party within this ten-day period or at any time before October 9, 1940. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, Section 135. Such an order was given on that date, the parties having on that date agreed "to a late preparation of the record . . . in compliance with G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, Section 72." The effect of such an agreement cannot be greater than "an order of the court to the same effect." G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, Section 72. Since no order for "a late preparation of the record" could have been made by the Superior Court October 9, 1940 (Flood v. Grinnell, 286 Mass. 214; Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Sweeney, ante, 26, 31), the agreement of the parties to that effect is without force, and the defendant's exceptions are not properly before this court

Decision affirmed. This is a petition filed in the Land Court to foreclose rights of redemption on land situated in Everett that had been sold for nonpayment of taxes for the year 1922. See G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 60, Section 65, as last amended by St. 1938, c. 305. This statute provides that after "two years from a sale or taking of land for taxes . . . [with an exception not here material] whoever then holds the title thereby acquired may bring a petition in the land court for the foreclosure of all rights of redemption thereunder." A judge of the Land Court found in effect that the petitioner was not the holder of a tax title and ordered the petition dismissed. The petitioner appealed from this decision. According to subsidiary facts found, the tax title, on December 31, 1924, was held as a matter of record by one William Williams, and on that date the petitioner, the wife of the owner of the property subject to this tax title, paid to the collector of taxes of the city a sum of money "as the amount sufficient to redeem said parcel of land from the lien created . . . by the deed of the collector of taxes" and received a certificate to that effect, which was recorded by the petitioner on January 9, 1925, a record thereof being made on the margin of the record of the tax deed to Williams. See G. L. c. 60, Section 62, as amended by St. 1924, c. 3; Section 63. The judge found that the collector in "receiving the amount paid . . . did not collect a tax but received money from a person claiming to have an

Page 553

interest in the property who sought to redeem." He ruled that the tax title was extinguished. See Hodsdon v. Weinstein, 251 Mass. 440, 443. He also ruled that, even if by reason of certain omissions in the certificate -- to which no objection was made at the trial -- the certificate was invalid "as a redemption it could not be held that the collector by his own error could vest himself with power to assign a tax title which was not held by the city but was held as of record by William Williams." Without discussing the effect of the omissions in the certificate it is enough to say that the petitioner failed to show that she was the holder of a tax title and, consequently, that she cannot maintain the petition.