470 MORETON v. HARRISON.—1 BLAND.

pursuance of his contract he made, at different times, considerable
payments, but from the length of time is unable to state the pre-
cise amount of each; and does not admit, that he has obtained
credit for all he has paid; nor can he admit, that any part of the
purchase money is due from him; and he denies that he has ad-
mitted to any one, that any part of said money was due, or that
he has promised at any time to pay the same. He then alleges
and pleads in bar of the plaintiffs' claim, that the debt, in the
condition of the writing obligatory mentioned, has been standing
and in action above twelve years before the institution of this
suit, therefore he relies upon the Act of Limitation. In addition
to which he relies upon the great lapse of time since the debt be-
came due, and before this suit was brought, as furnishing evidence
of the payment of the said debt. Thus it appears, that the de-
fendant rests his defence * upon a denial of the admissions
498 and promises charged in the bill; upon the positive bar of
the Statute of Limitations in relation to bond debts; and upon
the presumption of payment arising from the lapse of time. Mitf.
Plea. 306.

The defendant's solicitor seems to have considered the contract,
upon which this suit has been instituted, as a mere stipulation for
the payment of money, and nothing more. But there is a sub-
stantial distinction between a loan of money, and a sale of prop-
erty. In a contract of loan there never is any other intention
than that of creating the relation of debtor and creditor; and the
contract is as complete, and the relation of debtor and creditor
attaches as firmly without as with a written evidence of the debt.
A mortgage, bond, or note, given as a security, is a mere acci-
dental circumstance in a transaction concluded and complete by
the advance of the money. The stipulation entered into as a se-
curity is an addition which does not arise as an incident, or in any
respect follow as a necessary legal consequence of a contract of
loan. In a sale of real estate the principles of equity are mate-
rially different. In purchase, payment is an essential part of the
contract; consequently, where the whole, or any part of the pur-
chase money remains unpaid, it is an established general rule, de-
rived to us from the civil law, that the vendor holds a lien upon
the estate sold for the purchase money unpaid. The adjudications
upon the subject have occasioned some difficulty in ascertaining
what shall amount to a waiver or relinquishment of this equitable
lien; but it is perfectly well settled, that in every case of a pur-
chase of real estate, where there has been no such waiver or re-
linquishment, the vendor has a lien upon the property sold to
secure the payment of the purchase money, as against the vendee,
his heirs, and all others who take under him with notice. This
vendor's lien is an equitable incident uniformly and necessarily
arising from, and associated with every contract of bargain and