536 RIDGELY v. IGLEHART.—3 BLAND.

of proceeding for the recovery of their respective shares than by
a scire facias upon the judgment thus recovered, it is not neces-
sary now to determine. But it is clear, that whether the bond
has been taken under the direction of the Court of Chancery, or
of a County Court, or whatever may be the proper course of pro-
ceeding, the remedy must be at common law upon the bond itself,
or upon that judgment by which the bond has been absorbed.

This last general Act to Direct Descents declares, that the legal
estate shall not be conveyed until the terms of sale shall have
been complied with by the purchaser having paid the purchase
money; and in relation to the estate held by the purchaser, it is
said to be an equitable interest therein before any deed shall be
executed for the estate sold. And again it is said, that the County
Court or Chancellor shall be satisfied, that the purchase money
has been fully paid before a conveyance is ordered to be made.
1820, ch. 191, s. 24 and 25. Whence it is clear, that the hen, the
remedy upon it, and its final disengagement by a conveyance are
all expressly declared to rise out of, and to be attendant upon the
bond; and to be chiefly or altogether a continuation or part of the
judicial proceedings of that tribunal to which the application had
been made for a partition of the estate. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Craw.
309.

It is declared, that the bond shall remain as a lien until the
* money intended to be secured thereby shall be wholly paid.
549 And therefore it would seem that this statutory lien, thus
blended with such a bond, must be co-extensive with the whole
interest of the heirs of the intestate. But it cannot be so in all
cases.

Here it has been shewn, that Reuben Ridgely, one of the heirs,
was the purchaser; and consequently, the bond which he gave,
could not, as to himself, have been intended to secure more than
the amount of the four shares belonging to the other heirs. The
purchase by him, he being one of the heirs, gave him the same
sort of undivided interest in the whole which another purchaser
would have had, who had paid to him his share of the purchase
money. But it appears, that Amelia Ridgely, another of the heirs,
became bound by this bond as the surety of Reuben Ridgely,
Whence it necessarily follows, that she thereby tacitly and totally
waived and extinguished her lien; because, as regards her interest,
no bond has been given to secure her share of the purchase money;
and as no lien can arise but upon a bond given as a security to
her; the lien which would otherwise have so arisen must be con-
sidered as having been suppressed by this, her own deliberate act,
which repudiates the existence of any such lien. And, therefore,
since she has thus precluded herself from any such lien upon the
land, and has trusted entirely to the personal liability of her co-
obligor Reuben Ridgely, the purchaser, it follows, that this bond