IGLEHART v. ARMIGER.—1 BLAND. 493

cipal, and the bond, note, or mortgage are only the accidents or
incidents to it. In both cases the extinguishment of the principal
destroys its incidents. A purchase may be made, or a debt may
exist without an equitable lien, or a bond, note, or mortgage

* as its incident. A bond, note, or mortgage may however 524
be executed as being, in itself, the creator, evidence, and incident
of a debt; but an equitable lien cannot be thus made and executed
apart from, and independently of a contract of purchase, or as
being in itself, the evidence of a purchase. Hence, it is perfectly
evident, that a bond, note, or mortgage may be, in itself, at once
the principal and incident; it may create a debt, and thus estab-
lish the principal of which it is the evidence and incident; but an
equitable lien is so purely an incident, that it cannot be called into
existence in any other manner than as an attendant upon a con-
tract of purchase; and when that is satisfied or substantially
waived, the equitable lien is gone.

It is true, as a general rule, that the principal carries with it all
its incidents, bnt not the reverse. Accessorium non ducit, sed sequi-
tur suum principale. Co. Litt. 151, 152; 2 Blac. Com. 176. And
therefore if the debt be in any manner distinctly and legally
assigned; the assignment carries with it the bond, note, or mort-
gage as its incident; because the transfer of the money carries
with it the mortgage interest in the land, and all other securities
which were given for the purpose of assuring its payment. This
may be done by parol notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds. So
too, if it be the Intent of the mortgagee to give the debt only, he
may do so by a will not attested by three witnesses; and the legatee
may in the name of the heir obtain, in equity, all the benefit of
the mortgage; but if his intention was to devise it as land, then
his will must be duly attested for that purpose. The reason of this
is, that a gift, assignment, or bequest of the principal carries with
it all its beneficial incidents. Green v. Hart, 1 John. Rep. 580;
Jackson v. Willard, 4 John. Rep. 41; Runyan v. Mersereau, 11
John. Rep. 534; Martin v. Mowlin, 2 Burr. 978; Pow. Mart. 140,
144, 266, 429.

But an equitable lien is an encumbrance upon land which, can
only be held by a vendor; and although assets may be marshalled,
so as to put a vendor altogether upon his equitable lien, for the
benefit of other creditors, yet no third person can, as assignee of
the vendor, derive any benefit from such lien; Mackreth v. Sym-
mons, 15 Ves. 339, note; Sug. Vend. & Pur. 395; nor can it, like a
bond or mortgage, be assigned; because it is not expressed in
writing, or in any separate contract; but exists only as an insepa-
rable equitable incident of the contract of purchase; and is raised
by construction of equity, in favor of the vendor only. To allow
it to pass by an assignment of the claim for the purchase

* money: or by a transfer of the bonds, or notes, given as a 525