RIDGELY v. IGLEHART.—3 BLAND. 533

case, to be called into action to subserve the purposes of an indi-
vidual who institutes a suit against any one who stands bound, as
in this instance, only nominally as a public debtor, but in reality
as liable * upon a contract intended and allowed only to ope-
rate as a mere private security. Ex parte Usher, I Ball & 545
Bat. 197.

There are several instances in which, by express legislative en-
actment, it is declared, that a bond given to the State shall be a
lien, and bind the real estate of the obligors for the payment of
the debt. In one of those enactments a special and summary
course of proceeding is prescribed for obtaining judgment against
the obligors. But nothing is said in any of them as to the mode
in which the benefit of the lien is to be obtained where the obligor
may have aliened his land after having given such a bond. Upon
which it has been held that the lands upon which such a statutory
lien had been fastened, might be taken in execution under a fieri
facias in whosoever hands or possession they might be found.
1769, ch. 14, s. 12; 1773, ch. 20, s. 9; 1791, ch. 85, s. 9; 1792, ch.
38, s. 3; 1799, ch. 80, s. 5 aud 17; 1802, ch. 100, s. 12; Lane v.
Gover, 3 H. & McH. 394.

The lien of which alone this plaintiff can have any benefit what-
ever, either at law or in equity, is that, and only that which has
been secured to him by the Act to Direct Descents, as it was under
that law the sale was made for the purpose of effecting a partition,
upon which a share of the purchase money was awarded to this
plaintiff with a bond and hen, given as prescribed to secure its
payment. The positive provisions of the last general Act to Direct
Descents, as regards the matter under consideration, will be best
understood by adverting to the previous enactments upon the same
subject. As to which it will be proper to premise, that where a
partition could not be made of the lands descended among the
heirs without loss or disadvantage, these Acts of Assembly pre-
scribed two modes of effecting a division of their value; first, that
one of the heirs should be allowed to elect to take the whole at a
valuation on his becoming bound to pay to each of the other heirs
his due proportion; and secondly, if no one of the heirs would
elect to take the whole upon those terms, that then the land should
be sold, and the proceeds of sale divided among them. In both
cases there is a sale, in the one to the heir electing to take, and in
the other to a purchaser; and, therefore, there was a like propriety
in both cases in having the payment of the purchase money well
secured.

The matter under consideration is then as to the nature of the
security given, according to the provisions of these laws, for the
payment of the purchase money, where a sale has been made in
* either of those modes for the purpose of effecting a divi-
sion of the value of the land descended. 546