governmental offices. Our United States Supreme Court has stated that the right to redeem is a substantial right. In re Application of Rosewell, 148 Ill. App. 3d 297, 303, 498 N.E.2d 790, 794 (1986) (Phoenix Bond), citing Martin v. Barbour, 140 U.S. 634, 646, 35 L. Ed. 546, 550, 11 S. Ct. 944, 949 (1891). As a result, Illinois law traditionally favors redemption and seeks to give a liberal construction to the redemption laws, as long as the tax purchaser suffers no injury. Sadacca, 171 Ill. App. 3d at 648, 525 N.E.2d at 854; Phoenix Bond, 148 Ill. App. 3d at 303, 498 N.E.2d at 794. In particular, when the exercise of the right to redeem is prevented by official mistake, courts of equity ought to intervene. Phoenix Bond, 148 Ill. App. 3d at 303, 498 N.E.2d at 794, citing Mar (1949) (<HOLDING>). However, in the 1980s, there emerged a strong
holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant holding the district court erred by allowing questions premised on an assumption of guilt holding that trial court erred in allowing police officer to testify to contents of telephone records that were not introduced into evidence holding that the trial court erred in allowing an equitable reduction in the amount required to redeem the subject property