534 RIDGELY v. IGLEHART.—3 BLAND.

By the original Act it was declared, that where one of the heirs
elected to take at the valuation, the value should be a lien and in-
cumbrauce on such land until paid; and further, that the same
might be recovered by an action upon the case brought by the
parties respectively entitled. 1786, ch, 45, s. 9. Whereby a lien
of a specified and peculiar character was given, nearly similar, it
is true, to a vendor's equitable hen; but instead of pronouncing
it to be a lieu of that kind, or of sending the party to a Court of
equity to have it enforced; the mode of obtaining the benefit of it
was expressly declared to be by an action at common law.

By some subsequent Acts it was declared, that where any person
entitled should elect to take the estate, or any part of it, at the
valuation; or where it should be sold, the bonds taken for the pay-
ment of the purchase money should remain and be a lien on the
land until they should be wholly paid. 1802, ch. 94, s. 5; 1809, ch.
160, s. 6. By these provisions the circumstances which give a
lien, in the case of a purchase by election were altered; and in-
stead of the lien originating simply from an election to take at the
valuation, as in the previous law, it was made to arise only from
the bonds given as well on a purchase by election as at a sale.
By another Act it was declared, that it should not be necessary
for an elector or purchaser to give bond to each one of the repre-
sentatives of the intestate; but that one bond might be given to
the State to secure to the heirs their respective proportions; 1815,
ch. 205; but this Act was totally silent upon the subject of a lieu.

In all cases, however, it would seem, that, as an additional se-
curity for the payment of the purchase money, the legal title was
to be withheld until the whole amount was paid; for, it was de
clared that the legal title should not be conveyed to the purchaser
until the terms of sale had been complied with by his having paid
the purchase money. 1799, ch. 49, s. 3. And by another Act it
was declared, that the legal title should not be conveyed to him
who elected to take until the valuation had been paid or secured
to be paid to the heirs of the intestate. 1802. ch. 94, s. 6. Upon
which it has been held, that, until the purchase money has been
so paid or secured to be paid, the legal title does so absolutely re-
main in each one of the heirs, that he may * maintain an
547 action of ejectment, and recover in his own name the entire
share of the legal estate which had descended to him, in like man-
ner as if no attempt to effect a partition had been previously made.
Jarrett v. Cooley, 6 H. & J. 258.

By the last general Act to Direct Descents, under which these
lands descended, and in pursuance of which the sale was made,
and the bond given to the. State, it is declared, that such bond
shall be conditioned for the payment of the amount of the pur-
chase money to the legal representatives of such intestate, in such
proportion as each may be entitled to, agreeably to the order of