HOFFMAN v. JOHNSON.

other material facts of the case, sufficiently appear from the Chan-
cellor's opinion. After several abatements, by the death of parties,
the case, having been revived, was at length brought to a final
hearing.

18th July, 1826.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing, and no counsel appearing for the defendants,
the solicitor for the plaintiffs was heard, and the proceedings read
and considered.

This case, as it now stands, is much reduced in compass, but is
not yet altogether free from difficulties. The first inquiry is,
whether, in point of fact, the purchase money has been paid by
the plaintiff Hoffman, or those under whom he claims; or whether,
according to the principles of equity, the vendee has been alto-
gether discharged from his responsibility, even although the pur-
chase money may not have been entirely collected and paid.

According to the contract between the parties, the vendor was
to obtain payment, in part, by collecting the amount due on several
bonds and notes, assigned to him on the 23d of July, 1791; which,
as was declared by the agreement, " when paid are to go in dis-
charge of the amount of such payments." The debt due from
Chapline, which was one of them, it is admitted, by a solicitor
of the defendants, has been lately collected and paid. And it is
proved, or conceded, that the whole of the purchase money has
been paid, except to the amount of the debts said to be still due
from Hole and from Benner. And whether or not these have been
paid, or the vendee discharged from his responsibllity for them, is,
at present, the whole extent of the controversy as regards the pur-
chase money.

The purchaser, in respect to these assigned debts, was placed in
the situation of a surety.(a) It will, therefore, be necessary to
advert to the general principles of equity, applicable to parties
standing in the relation to each other, in which these did, of cre-
ditor, principal debtor, and surety.

According to the Roman law, a surety was allowed three advan-
tages: 1st, he might compel the creditor to sue the principal debtor
first; 2d, the creditor might be driven to resort to each surety for
Ms proportional share only; and 3d, a surety, sued for the who1e
debt, might-demand of the creditor to transfer over his actions
against the other sureties, before he was allowed to recover the

(a) Anstey v. Marden, 1 New Rep. 124.