530 RIDGELY v. IGLEHART.—3 BLAND.

The demurrer of Michael Iglehart of Anne Arundel County to
the bill of complaint of Robert Ridgely against him in Chancery
exhibited. This defendant by protestation not confessing or ac-
knowledging all or any of the matters or things iu the complain-
ant's said bill of complaint to be true in manner and form as they
are therein alleged, for answer thereto this defendant doth demur
iu law. And for cause of demurrer says, that the said bill con-
tains not any matter of equity whereon this Court can ground any
decree, or give the complainant any relief, or assistance as against
this defendant. That if the matters stated in said bill do give
the complainant any cause of complaint or action against this de-
fendant the same is triable and determinate at law, and not to be
enquired into by this Court. That the State of Maryland is, by
the complainant's own shewing, a proper and necessary party to
any suit or action in this Court which may be prosecuted touching
the matters alleged in said bill. And that the heirs-at-law of
William Ridgely in said bill named, are likewise proper and neces-
sary parties thereto. Wherefore, and also for divers other errors
and imperfections in said bill, this defendant doth demur thereto
and prays the judgment of this Court whether he ought to make
further answer; and also prays to be hence dismissed with his
costs, &c.

* BLAND, C., 30th July, 1832.—This case standing ready
542 for hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been
fully heard, the proceedings were read and considered.

The plaintiff founds his right to sue this defendant alone and iu
this Court upon the circumstance of his claim being altogether or
in some essential particulars, of an equitable character only; and
upon the fact, that the property held by this defendant has been
bound for the satisfaction of his claim, and may be followed and
taken by him alone without regard to any other similar and con-
temporaneous claims upon it; and also without regard to the
manner, or to any one from whom this holder of it may have de-
rived title after it had become so bound. And all this the plaintiff'
seems to conceive, necessarily arises from his being, as he alleges,
the holder of an equitable lien upon the land.

The term lien is applied in various modes; but, in all cases, it
signifies an obligation, tie, or claim annexed to, or attaching upon
property without satisfying which such property cannot be de-
manded by its owner. Jacob Law Dict. v. Lien. Lien, in its
proper sense, is a right which the law gives. But it is usual to
speak of lien by contract, though that be more in the nature of
an agreement for a pledge. And there are liens which exist only
in equity, and of which equity alone can take cognizance. Glad-
stone v. Birley. 2 Meriv. 403, The existence of a lien, however,
and the benefit which may be derived from it, as well as the mode