628 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.—2 BLAND.

*the 12th of May, 1826, whereupon he prayed an attach-
663 ment against Anderson to enforce obedience to that order,
which, was granted as prayed, returnable to the then next term.

BLAND, C., 23d September, 1828.—Samuel Anderson having
been brought into Court on an attachment to enforce obedience
to the order directing him to pay the amount of the purchase
money then due; and the trustee having prayed, that he, Ander-
son, be committed, he produced a certificate from the clerk of
Anne Arundel County Court, of his personal discharge by that
Court under the insolvent laws. Whereupon it is ordered, that
the said Samuel Anderson be, and he is hereby discharged from
custody, according to the provisions of the Act of Assembly in
such case made and provided. 1825, ch. 122.

'The trustee Boyle, by his petition, filed on the 21st of February,
1829, stated, that the land sold to Samuel Anderson would not
now bring near the amount he had contracted to pay for it; that
the sureties, James Anderson and John Stewart, in the appeal bond
given by Samuel Anderson on his appeal from the order of the
12th of May, 1826, were sufficiently good. Whereupon the trustee
Boyle prayed the advice and direction of the Court in what manner
to proceed; by passing an order, that a re-sale should take place,
or that the bond should be sued or both; and if a re-sale should take
place that Samuel Anderson and his sureties should pay the difference
or such other relief as might be consistent with the circumstances
of the case.

BLAND, C., 25th February, 1829.—This petition of the trustee
having been submitted, the proceedings were read and consid-
ered.

On a sale of real estate; made under an order or decree of this
Court, it retains an equitable lien until the purchase money is paid:
this lien stands in all respects upon the same footing as a vendor's
lien in case of a sale by a private person; and is in no instance
weakened or destroyed by the bonds or notes which the trustee
may be directed to take from the purchaser; nor can it be at all
impaired or relinquished by any act of the trustee not sanctioned
by the Court. This lien arises from and is incident only to the re-
lationship of seller and purchaser; and is peculiarly and exclu-
sively * a privilege of the vendor. These principles of
664 equity 1 take to have been long and well established here as
well as in England. Meluy v. Cooper, ante, 199, note; Purnell v.
Comegys, 1806, per KILTY, Chancellor; Bailie v. Harrison, 1806, per
KILTY, Chancellor; Moreton v. Harrison, 1 Bland, 491; Iglehart v.
Armiger, 1 Bland, 519.

It may be regarded as a general rule, that the obtaining of one
security does in no instance operate as a suspension or extinction