R1DGELY r. IGLEHART—3 BLAND. 535

the Court; which bond shall be and remain a lieu on the said real ,
estate until the money intended to be secured thereby shall be
wholly paid; and the said bond shall be recorded among the re-
cords of the County Court from which the commission shall have
issued; and in case the commission shall have issued from the
Chancery Coutt; then the said bond to be recorded in the office of
the Court of Appeals for the Western shore; and upon such bond,
or an office copy thereof, suit or suits may be instituted against
the obligors therein, or any of them, for any breach of the condi-
tion thereof by any person interested therein. And the plea of
non est factum shall not be received to any such suit unless the
same be verified by the affidavit of the defendant tendering the
same. 1820, ch. 191, s. 22.

Here then, and in this case, that lien from which alone this
plaintiff' can ask to have any benefit whatever is made to arise
altogether and exclusively from the bond. It is blended and asso-
ciated with that instrument, and is a specific lien which is as much
parcel of the bond as is that of a specific lien of a mortgage. The
existence of two liens at the same time, in favor of the same
party, upon the same estate, and having the same object, are
utterly inconsistent and incompatible with each other; and hence
it has become well established, that the taking of a mortgage of
the same estate to secure the payment of the purchase money
waives or extinguishes the vendor's equitable lieu. Maclreth v.
Symmons, 15 Vex. 330; Iglehart v. Armiger, 1 Bland, 519. So here
this express hen, given by this Act of Assembly as an incident of
the bond, necessarily excludes and repudiates every thing like a
mere equitable lien having the same object upon the same estate.
And instead of the remedy upon this statutory lien being pecu-
liarly and exclusively cognizable in a Court of equity, as is that
upon a * proper equitable lien, it is expressly declared, that
it shall only be enforced by a suit at common law upon the 548
bond itselt. The hen security, and the remedy upon it, in this re-
spect, are alike new and specially prescribed; neither the one nor
the other is left to be ascertained by inference or analogy.

I am therefore of opinion, that no mere equitable lien can be
presumed to arise from any sale of a real estate made under this
law for the purpose of effecting a division of its value; and that
this plaintiff can have no remedy whatever for recovering the
amount of the purchase money due to him, other than that which
has been specially prescribed by this Act of Assembly, under
which the sale has been made and the bond given.

Whether the first judgment which may have been obtained, as
in this instance, upon a bond of this description, by any one of
the heirs, for whose security it was given, so merges the whole
bond as that no other suit can be brought upon it against the
same obligors; or so as to leave to the other heirs no other mode