222 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

clothed with all the rights and remedies of those whose debts
they paid. The case of Hollingsworth vs. Floyd, 2 H. & G.,
87, furnishes an illustration of this principle, and shows, that
under the act of 1763, chap. 23, a surety paying is entitled to
an assignment from the creditor, and that upon the established
principles of equity, he, the surety, is entitled to call on the
creditor, not only for an assignment of the claim, but likewise
of all the liens which the principal debtor may have given him.
The same doctrine is maintained by the Court of Appeals in
Ghiselin and Worthington vs. Fergusson, 4 H. & J., 522.

The Chancellor in White vs. Williams, 1 Paige, 502, said,
he was not aware of any case 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. Cases may be found in which,
by express agreement, the lien has passed to the assignee of the
bond or note, but I very much question if any research will
discover a case going further, and in which it has been decided
that a third party, not connected with the original transaction
as a surety, is entitled to the vendor's lien simply upon- the
ground of an assignment of the debt.

Apart, however, from the doctrine that the equitable lien of
the vendor does not pass by a mere assignment of the bond or
note, it is thought the lien cannot be set up in this case, upon
another and distinct ground. The Court of Appeals in Schneb-
ly and Lewis vs. Ragan, place their decision upon the ground
that the vendor, by the terms of the assignment in that case,
was not Responsible for the payment of the notes, and that, con-
sequently, as to him it amounts to a payment, a satisfaction of
the claim. The lien being intended, as they say, to secure the
payment of the purchase money to the vendor, an assignment
without responsibility and for value, is equivalent to payment
and extinguishes the lien. It would hence follow in this case,
that if Martin, the vendor, is not now responsible for this money,
being discharged therefrom by the neglect of the assignee, to
use due diligence for ifs collection, or from any other cause, the
lien would be gone, it existing for the security of the vendor,
and continuing only so long as may be required for that purpose.