496 IGLEHART v. ARMIGER.—1 BLAND.

the English books; but it has often occurred in this Court, that an
equitable lien has been held to arise on a sale of a mere equitable
estate, which lien has been enforced accordingly. Ghiselin v. Fer-
gusson, 3 H. & J. 522; Pinkney v. Mayo, MS. 19th April, 1814, and
14th April, 1821.

There is then nothing in the authorities adduced, which shews
it to have been held by this Court, either that an equitable lieu
was in any manner assignable unconnected with the land itself
which was the subject of the contract of purchase; or that an
assignment in any form of the bond or note given to secure the
payment of the purchase money carries with it the equitable lieu
held by the vendor or assignor of such bond or note.

I will here take occasion to repeat, that, in all sales under a de-
cree, the Court itself must be considered as the vendor; since the
contract is made with the Court, through the instrumentality of
its trustee or agent, for the benefit of all concerned. Savile v.
Savile, 1 P. Will. 747; Ex parte Minor, 11 Fes. 561. And conse-
quently, the equitable lien, thus held by the Court, may, and has
always been treated as such a lien would be considered if held by
a natural person; but which can in no manner whatever be affected
by any act of the trustee not expressly sanctioned by the Court
itself. The powers and duties of a trustee are always specified in
the decree, or orders by which his acts are directed. He was, in
this instance, directed to collect and distribute the purchase money,
by the order of the 1st of April, 1818, and by the Act of
528 * 1817, ch. 46. But it does not appear, that he was in any
manner authorized to assign the bonds; and therefore, Ido not see
upon what ground he now assumes the right to appear here as a
plaintiff, and tell this Court of his unauthorized dealing with its
business. But suppose the Court could have so ordered by the
provisions of the Act of 1817, ch. 46, and he had been directed to
assign those bonds, that assignment would not have carried with
it a iien upon the land until they were paid; or any right to resort
to him, or the Court, in case they had not been pajd after the
assignee had used due diligence to recover the amount secured by
them. 1785, ch. 72, s. 9. The Acts of Assembly giving a lien in
certain cases, in connexion with the bond given by the purchaser,
afford strong evidence, that it never has been considered as follow-
ing any such assignment where it was not expressly given by law.
1820, ch. 191, s. 20, 21 and 22.

But it is urged, that a decree may be entered up by the default
of some, and with the assent of the others of these defendants;
and therefore, the plaintiffs may be permitted to take such a de-
cree as they can abide by. That might be conceded if the case
itself, as shewn by the bill, was such an one as fell properly under
the cognizance of a Court of equity. That the Court has jurisdic-
tion, and that the plaintiff has a legal capacity to recover, upon