220 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

CHARLES DIXON ET AL.

vs. MARCH TERM, 1848.
HENRY R. W. DIXON ET AL.

[ASSIGNMENT OF VENDOR'S LIEN.]

UNLESS an express contract can be shown for the transfer of the vendor's lien,
it will not pass to the assignee simply upon the footing of the assignment of
the debt.

There are cases in which the benefit of the vendor's lien has been extended to
third persons; but they are cases in which the principle of marshalling as-
sets has led to such results, or where sureties, who have been compelled to
pay for their principals, have been, by substitution, clothed with all the
rights and remedies of those whose debts they paid,

There has been no case found where the assignee of a note or other security,
given for the purchase money of land, has been permitted to sustain a claim of
this description on an implied agreement to assign the lien, though cases may
be found, in which, by express agreement, the lien has passed to the assignee of
the bond or note.

The lien being intended to secure the payment of the purchase money to the
vendor, an assignment of the notes or bonds given therefor, without respon-
sibility, and for value, is equivalent to payment and extinguishes the lien.

[This cause was brought to a hearing, and argued on excep-
tions to the Auditor's report, the main point at issue being
whether the assignee of a bond given for the purchase money
of land conveyed by the vendor to the vendee, can claim the
benefit of the equitable lien of the vendor, without any express
agreement for the transfer of such lien, to the prejudice of the
creditors nf the vendee.

On the 25th of August, 1841, Noah Dixon, executed two
single bills to John W. Martin, to secure the payment of the pur-
chase money of land sold by Martin to said Dixon, which were
by said Martin assigned to the present holder, on the 25th June,
1842, with guarantee of payment. The land was conveyed to
said Dixon on the 11th October, 1841, who died in 1844, leav-
ing an estate inadequate to pay all the claims against it, al-
though he was in solvent circumstances at the time of the as-
signment, which took place on the 25th of June, 1842. One
of the bonds became due in August, 1843, and the other in
August, 1844, but no evidence was produced of any proceed-