IGLEHART v. ARMIGER.—l BLAND. 495

equitable lien. Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 Yea. 330. But, in the
case under consideration, it is not pretended, that any of these
assignees were ever, in any manner or form, to be considered as
the vendors; or that the interest in the land had been assigned to
them subject to Armiger's contract. These assignees merely took
the chose in action with the bonds as the evidence of it; and now
contend, that the assignment so made to them has, in itself, given
to them the equitable lien originally held by the vendor. These
cases are materially different, and the one cannot in any manner
be applied to sustain the position now contended for in the other.

The case of Hollingsworth v. Bowie and others, 20th June, 1824,
has also been relied on. But no reasons were given for the de-
cision, and it .seems to me, that the judgment of the Chancellor
must have been founded, not upon the assignable nature of an
equitable lien, but upon the ground, that Eay, the surety of Bowie
the vendee, with Barber, the holder of the note, had a right to be
substituted in the place of the vendor. Ghiselin v. Fergussaon, 4 H.
& J. 522; White v. Williams 1 Paiye, 502. The case of Randall,
and others v. White and others, 3rd August, 1825, has also been
spoken of. But it does not appear, that any such question, as that
of the assignable nature of an equitable lien, could well have arisen
in it; and I am confident, no such point was ever made in that
case.

It will be proper, however, to recollect, that this land has been
twice sold under the authority of this Court; first, under the decree
of December, 1816, by which the Court reserved the legal title
with an equitable lien as against the purchaser John Cross; and
secondly, under the decree of January, 1818, by which the equita-
ble estate of John Cross was sold with the reservation of an equita-
ble lien as against the purchaser Benjamin Armiger. A doubt has
been expressed whether an equitable lieu can arise as an incident
to the * sale of a mere equitable interest; Bayley v. Green- 527
leaf, 7 Wheat. 50; such as that sold to Armiger. But I can
see no ground for any such distinction between the sale of a legal
and an equitable estate. The lien is given to the vendor, not be-
cause of the quantity of interest, or the nature of the estate sold;
but, because it would be unjust that the purchaser should hold
that absolutely for which he had not paid; and because, until the
whole purchase money has been paid, the contract of purchase
cannot be considered as complete. Now these reasons apply as
obviously, and as satisfactorily to the sale of an equitable as to
the sale of a legal estate. The existence of two equitable liens
upon the same real estate can be in no respect more incompatible
than the contemporaneous existence of two encumbrances of any
other description. They must be permitted to take according to
their priorities and other equities, as usually 'adjusted by this
Court. There may be, perhaps, no ease like this to be found in