IGLEHAET «. AEMIGER.—1 BLAND. 491

Selby's estate, allotted to John Cross and Jemima his wife, is to
be paid to Jemima Cross, who has survived John Cross, inasmuch
as it was not received, or assigned, or applied by him in his life-
time. Having been the purchaser, if he had settled up the other
parts, he might have settled his proportion with the trustee by
discount, or possibly might have settled that part only with him.
The case must now be considered, as to her right, in the same
manner as if any other person had been the purchaser. Jones v.
Jones, ante, 454. But the trustee, in paying the parts allotted
under the orders of the 1st and 29th of April, 1819, must pay only
a rate or proportion to each, according to the net sum received
from the sale of J. Cross' real estate, until he recovers the bal-
ance on his bond. The present trustee is allowed one-third of the
commissions of 182 dollars, paying two-thirds to the representa-
tives of T. Sellman."

* Two of the bonds which had been taken from Armiger,

after several partial payments on them, were, on the 28th of 522
December, 1824, by James Iglehart, as trustee for the sale of the
real estate of John Cross deceased, assigned to John S. Selby one
of the heirs of the late Joseph Selby, and to whom a portion of
his estate had been awarded by the auditor's report, and the order
thereon of the 1st of April, 1818. And, by Selby, these bonds
were assigned to Robert S. Bryan; and, by him assigned to Wil-
liam McParlan. Nicholas J. Watkins and John S. Watkins
undertook to guaranty the payment of these bonds. Upon all
which this bill was filed.

It was urged, that the equitable lien held by the Court, arising
from the sale under its decree, or by the late Thomas Sellman
and his successor, as trustee under the Act of Assembly, was
assignable in its nature; that it has been assigned; that it was
necessarily associated with the bonds given by the purchaser
Armiger, and his sureties, and virtually passed along with the
assignment of them from Iglehart to Selby, to Bryan and to Mc-
Parlan.

An equitable lien is one of a very peculiar character. It is not
like the common law lien of factors, innkeepers and others, asso-
ciated with and entirely dependent upon the actual possession of
the property on which it is a tie; it is not like a general judicial
lien, which springs into existence in favor of a party who obtains
a judgment, which enables him to take the lands of the defendant
in execution, and continues as an incident to such unsatisfied judg-
ment to which the statute has expressly made all the lands of the
defendant liable; it is not like the lien of the State upon the prop-
erty of its debtor, founded as well on positive enactment as on
principles of common law, by which the interests of individuals
are postponed in favor of those of the public; it is not precisely
of the nature of the lien given by the civil law to those called