396 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

the bargainer therein not impeaching it as fraudulent, but
claiming the aid of this court to enforce his lien "as vendor, to
recover the purchase money expressed in it, the question is,
shall he be permitted to do so, if upon the evidence it is shown
that he has received, not in money, but in something else of
value, what at the time he considered as an equivalent for the
money ?

Suppose, in the case of Wolfe vs. Hauver, the defendant,
the purchaser, could have shown that he had paid, and the
plaintiff hail received, as an equivalent for the two thousand
dollars, (the consideration expressed in the deed,) merchan-
dise or other property; and that such was the agreement of
the parties, at the time the contract for the purchase was made?
Can it be possible, that under such circumstances the com-
plainant could have been allowed to recover a judgment for the
purchase money ? If he could, where would be the defend-
ant's redress for a wrong so monstrous and palpable ? If he
could not defend himself at law, because he could not in the
face of the deed prove any other than the payment of the
monied consideration expressed, he would be equally defence-
less in equity; because the rules of evidence in regard to ex-
plaining, or varying, or contradicting written evidence, are the
same in both courts; and thus the court must unavoidably be
the instrument in inflicting the grossest injustice.

If in the case HOW under examination, the consideration of
the deed from the complainant to the defendant, instead of
being, as is alleged, twenty-five thousand dollars of stock in
the Okisko Company, had been the conveyance by the defend-
ant to the complainant of real estate of the same value, and
each deed had been upon a money consideration expressed, is
it possible, that upon a bill filed by one of the grantors, claim-
ing the enforcement of the vendor's lien, this court must have
given him a decree for a sale of the property, upon proof that
the monied consideration expressed, had not been paid ? And
that, the other vendor must in like manner proceed upon his
equitable lien to recover his money, which in case of any
serious deterioration of the property, from any cause, might
be impossible.