488 IGLBHART v. ARMIGER.—1 BLAND.

Whereupon it is decreed, conformably to the said award, that
the property in the proceedings mentioned situate in Pratt street
in the City of Baltimore be held as the property of William Ship-
ley, Jun'r, and Isaac Phillips, Jun'r, and their legal representatives
and assigns, as tenants in common; and it is further ordered, that
the property in the bill mentioned situate in Saratoga street in the
City of Baltimore be held by the said William Shipley, Jun'r,
Isaac Phillips, Jun'r, and Richard A. Shipley, their legal repre-
sentatives and assigns, as tenants in common; and it is further
ordered, that the property on Franklin street in the bill mentioned
be held as The sole and exclusive property of the said Richard A.
Shipley, his legal representatives and assigns. And it is further
ordered, that the said plaintiffs William Shipley, Jun'r, and Isaac
Phillips, Jun'r, pay unto the said defendant Richard A. Shipley
the sum of three hundred and fifty-five dollars and eighty-nine
cents, with legal interest thereon from the 31st day of May last
until paid. And it is further ordered, that each party pay his own
costs to be taxed by the register; but the costs of the award, as
estimated by the arbitrators and endorsed on the back of the
award, are hereby rejected as forming no part thereof.

519 *IGLEHART v. ARMIGEK.

VENDOR'S LIEN.—CHANCERY PRACTICE.

The vendor's equitable lien an incident to a contract of purchase: its peculiar

nature and character; two equitable liens upon the same estate may well

exist together, (a)
An equitable lien, not being assignable in its nature, is extinguished by the

assignment of the bond or note given for the payment of the purchase

money, (b)

An assignment or bequest of a debt carries with it all the securities.
The assent of parties cannot authorize the passing of a decree for which the

case Bet forth in the bill affords no sufficient foundation.
The equitable lien held by the Court for the payment of the purchase money

of land sold under its decree, cannot be enforced by a trustee who has

assigned the bonds given for its payment. (6)

This bill was filed on the 30th of September, 1828, by James
Iglehart, Robert S. Bryan, and William McParlan, against Benja-
min Armiger, Richard G. Hutton, Richard D. Hill, Rezin Estep,
John S. Selby, and Nicholas I. Watkins. The object of the bill
was to have a tract of land which had been sold by the plaintiff

(a) Cited in R. R, v. Trimble, 51 Md. 111.

(b) Affirmed in Hayden v. Steward, 4 Md. Ch. 382. Cited in Dixon. v. Dixon,
1 Md. Ch. 221.