494 IGLEHART v. AEMIGER.—1 BLAND.

security for the payment of the purchase money, would be of the
most ruinous consequence to titles to real estates. It would com-
pletely break down the Statute of Frauds, and all the Acts of
Assembly requiring conveyances of lands to be recorded; accord-
ing to which Acts no estate for above seven years in any land shall
pass or take effect, unless the written conveyance, by which it is
made, be within six months thereafter put upon record, and thus
made accessible to all concerned. A common bond, or a. mere
promissory note passing with a blank endorsement from hand to
band, might carry with it an incumbrance upon a real estate of
the most binding and extensive nature. Besides, if such assigna-
ble or negotiable instruments were permitted to carry with them
any such equitable lien, aliens and others, incapable of directly
taking any such estate, might thus acquire and hold a much larger
interest in land than is allowed by our law. 1784, ch. 58; Hughes
v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 496. This certainly ought not to be permitted;
and there is no authority sanctioning any such principle. Sug.
Vend. & Pur. 396.

But where there has been a bond or promissory note given for
the payment of the purchase money, which does not impair the
equitable lien, the assignment of such security must operate as
a tacit relinquishment of the equitable lien; because the assignee
and vendee are thereby placed in the relationship of creditor and
debtor; and the vendor having thus finally waived the right to
enforce his equitable lien, it can never again be revived in his
favor; unless his prrivilege as vendor has been kept up and con-
tinued by the holding of him answerable as assignor of the securi-
ties given for the payment of the purchase money. White v. Wil-
liams. 1 Paige, 502: Wilson v. Graham, 5 Mun. 297.

Although it is admitted, that no adjudged case can be found in
the English books to sustain the position, that an equitable lien
may be assigned, or that it virtually passes along with the assign-
ment of the bonds given for the payment of the purchase money;
yet it is said, that the principle had been sanctioned by the decisions
oi this Court.

The case principally relied on is, that of Brewer and Mackubin
v. Nicholls, 8th July, 1824. In that case Arnold was the vendor;
and he, as such, transferred to Brewer and Mackubin all the inte-
rest he held in the land, subject to Nicholls' contract as vendee;
and * also transferred to Brewer and Mackubin the debt due
526 from Nicholls to him; to which assignment Nicholls was
privy and assented. By virtue of all which Brewer and Mackubin
became, in fact, the vendors to whom Nicholls the vendee stipu-
lated to pay the purchase money. The whole contract and rela-
tionship of vendor and vendee were thus passed over to the new
parties, and therefore it was held, that the assignment with the
express assent of all the original parties carried with it the incident