ELYSVILLE MANUFACTURING CO VS. OKISKO CO. 395

In every subsequent case decided by the Court of Appeals,
the case, of the Bank and Betts, is explained in this way; that
is, as having decided, that when a deed is rendered inopera-
tive and void by disproving the consideration expressed in it,
evidence of a different consideration will not be received, to
set it up. Clagett and Hill vs. Hall, 9 G. & J., 91; Cole vs.
Alberts and Runge, 1 Gill, 423.

But the question presented in this case, is of a different
description. This deed is not impeached for fraud, as in the
case of the Union Bank vs. Betts, and Cole vs. Albers and
Runge. The complainants in this case maintain the validity
of the deed, and seek, upon the allegation, that the considera-
tion money has not been paid, to enforce its payment by the
assertion of the vendor's lien. And the question is, whether
in a court of equity he can be permitted to assert this lien, and
compel payment in this way of the consideration expressed in
the deed, if it appears by the evidence, that he has been satis-
fied for the purchase money, by receiving something else as an
equivalent therefor.

In the case of Wolfe vs. Hauver, 1 Gill, 84, which was an
action of assumpsit, to recover the value of lands sold and con-
veyed, but not paid for, objection was made to the admissibility
of parol evidence to disprove the acknowledgment in the deed;

but the court admitted it, upon the ground, that such acknowl-
edgment was only prima facie evidence, and the plaintiff, the
vendor, obtained the verdict and judgment. In that case as
here, the deed was not impeached for fraud, nor was the evi-
dence of non-payment offered to render it inoperative and void;

and the Court of Appeals say, "the introduction of the evi-
dence proposed to be offered, neither changes nor affects any
right transmitted in the property conveyed by the deed; it
operates no change in the legal character of the instrument,
nor in any manner affects injuriously any part of the deed, as a
conveyance; the receipt of the purchase money is no necessary
part of the deed, as it would in every respect be as valid with-
out it as with it."

The deed then being valid, and passing the legal title, and