ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.— 2 BLAND. 629

of any other security for the same claim: and that the party may,
in all such cases, obtain redress either on the one or the other of
them at his option. This rule might be exemplified by a great
variety of cases to be met with in the books. Ante, 655. The case
under consideration is an example shewing, that where a purchaser
has given bond with surety to the trustee, as required by the de-
cree, there are three distinct securities for the payment of the pur-
chase money. The equitable lien, under which the land may be re-
sold. The personal liability of the purchaser, upon which he may
be proceeded against in a summary way by attachment. And the
bond upon which the purchaser and his sureties may be sued at
law. There can be no doubt, that the payment of the purchase
money may be enforced by proceeding upon either one of these secur-
ities separately; since there is nothing either incompatible with the
contemporaneous existence of the others; nor does the acceptance
of any one operate as a suspension or extinction of the others; or
imply an abandonment of them.

But there is a material difference between securities for the pay-
ment of money and the remedies founded upon such securities;
for although they may be nothing in such securities themselves
inconsistent with their mutual existence; yet the institution of a
suit upon one may, from its nature, amount to a suspension or
waiver of the remedy upon the others at the same time. The
English statutes require, that the party who sues out a commission
of bankruptcy shall give bond in the penalty of £200, to answer
to the party grieved by falsely and maliciously suing out such com-
mission; and the giving of such bond, it has been held, does not
take away the common law remedy by action on the case. But.
the party grieved cannot sue on both at the same time; because in
the action on the case he submits to the jury whether he is enti-
tled to less or more than £200; and in the action on the bond lie
decides, that his claim is neither more nor less than the penalty of
£200. But he cannot have that penalty in addition to what a
*jury may say he is entitled to recover. Hence the electing 665
to obtain redress by either one of those modes amounts to a
waiver of the other, so that both cannot be prosecuted at the same
time. Holmes v. Wainewright, 1 Swan. 23: Cotterel v. Hooke, 1 Doug.
97.

in most cases however, the party may resort to all his securities
and have all his remedies put in operation at the same time. As
in the case of a pawn, the right to detain which is not divested by
the pawnee's also taking a covenant or further security on which
he may sue the person of the covenantor. The covenant is con-
sidered as affording an additional remedy and the party may pro-
ceed on both. Smart v. Wolff, 3 T. R. 342. So too the holder of
a promissory note or bill of exchange may sue the maker or drawer
and each endorser separately at one and the same time; although