96 HOFFMAN v. JOHNSON.—1 BLAND.

his lands to be sold by his executors, for the payment of his debts;
that his exeeutors had the mortgages forclosed. and afterwards
sold those lands to George Sehnertzell, and gave him a bond for a
conveyance on the payment of the purchase money; that Schnert-
zell sold a part to William Hobbs, who sold it to John Hoffman;
and the other part Schnertzell sold to John Hoffman, who thus
obtained a claim, as assignee of Schnertzell, to the whole; that
Schnertzell assigned many notes and bonds, in part payment, for
which he was to be answerable; that the executors of Hunter are
dead; and administration de bonis non had been granted on his
estate; and that Baker Johnson had become seized of the legal
title to those lands. Upon which, Hoffman, Hobbs, and Schnert-
zell, on the 23d of July, 3804, filed this bill, to obtain a convey-
ance of the legal title, allegiug. that the whole purchase money
had been paid. The * other material facts of the case, suffi-
ciently appear from the Chancellor's opinion. After several
abatements, by the death of parties, the case having been revived,
was at length brought to a final hearing.

BLAND, C., 18th July, 1826.—This case standing ready for hear-
ing, and no counsel appearing for the defendants, the solicitor for
the plaintiffs was heard, and the proceedings read and considered.

This case, as it now stands, is much reduced in compass, but is
not yet altogether free from difficulties. The first inquiry is,
whether, in point of fact, the. purchase money has been paid by
the plaintiff Hoffman, or those under whom he claims; or whether,
according to the principles of equity, the vendee has been alto-
gether discharged from his responsibility, even although the pur-
chase money may not have been entirely collected and paid.

According to the contract between the parties, the vendor was
To obtain payment, in part, by collecting the amount due on several
bonds and notes, assigned to him on the 23d of July, 1791; which,
as was declared by the agreement, "when paid are to go in dis-
charge of the amount of such payments." The debt due from
Chapline, which was one of them, it is admitted, by a solicitor
of the defendants, has been lately collected and paid. And it is
proved, or conceded, that the whole of the purchase money has
been paid, except to the amount of the debts said to be still due
from Hole and from Benner. And whether or not these have been
paid, or the vendee discharged from his responsibility for them, is,
at present, the whole extent of the controversy as regards the pur-
chase money.

The purchaser, in respect to these assigned debts, was placed in
the situation of a surety. Anstcy v. Marden. 1 New Rep. 124. It
will, therefore, be necessary to advert to the general principles of
equity, applicable to the parties standing in the relation to each
other, in which these did, of creditor, principal debtor, and surety.