282 LINGAN v. HENDERSON.

plea of limitations, adjudged to be barred; yet, that would not have
affected the party's remedy upon the mortgage; because, the suit
in chancery upon the mortgage involves the title to the land, which,
by analogy, can only be barred by the limitation of twenty years.
At law the lapse of twelve or three years is an absolute bar to the
remedy upon a bond or simple' contract. But a mortgage is a
security of a higher and more durable nature; one by which the
right to the land is pledged for the payment of the debt. The
lapse of twenty years, in such cases, has been allowed, by analogy,
and not by any direct operation of the statute limiting the time
within which an entry into land must be made, to raise a presump-
tion, either that the debt so secured never was due, or that it had
been paid.(w) And, upon the same principles, a similar presump-
tion of satisfaction after the lapse of twenty years has been held to
be a bar to a bill for the recovery of the purchase money founded
on the vendor's equitable lien.(#) But, where a mortgage, and a
bond or note has been given to secure the payment of the same
debt, the creditor may sue on all his remedies at the same time.
He may file a bill in chancery to foreclose, bring an action of
ejectment, and also an action upon the bond or note. The lapse
of twelve or three years would be a bar of his action upon the
bond or note; but the ejectment could only be barred by a lapse
of twenty years. The bill in chancery to foreclose the mortgage
or to enforce the equitable lien, being analogous to the proceeding
at law by ejectment upon the mortgage, can only be barred by a
similar lapse of time.(y) Hence, although issue has been joined
on this plea, it must be regarded as a nullity; since there is nothing
in the case to which it can at all apply.

Recollecting that the deed of conveyance from James M. Lingan
to John Henderson, bears date in May, 1807, after which John Hen-
derson repeatedly acknowledged, that he had paid no part of the
purchase money; that a plea admits the truth of every thing stated
in the bill not denied by it; that there is no answer in support of
this plea denying the truth of those acknowledgments charged in
the bill to have been made by John Henderson, which would cer-
tainly take the case out of the statute had it been barred in his
lifetime; and that this suit was instituted in November, 1821, it is

(w) Toplis v. Baker, 2 Cox. 123; Pow. Mort 361, note T. 393 note, 1153, 1155.
(*) Bidlake v. Arundel, 1 Rep. Cha. 93; Hunton v. Davies, 2 Rep. Cha, 44; Ma-
thews Presum. 395,—(y) Pow. Mort. 966, note G.; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 494