MORETON v. HARRISON. 499

ment of the purchase money. It is this, or there is nothing in the
bill to give the court jurisdiction; for, if it were a mere loan, in
which the relation of debtor and creditor was created, to which
was added the security of a bond, to insure the payment of the
debt due, the plaintiffs would have a complete remedy at law, and
this court could not take cognizance of the case; nor would the
prayer in the bill for an account give the court jurisdiction, since
the case is not, in itself, a proper one for an account,—there being
no mutual dealings which give rise to a series of charges on one
side as opposed to a variety of payments on the other, (i) This is
a single stipulation and charge; and the object is to enforce the
equitable lien as being a part of the contract of sale.

This equitable lien is to be found classed, in all the books, with
mortgages; it is however not precisely the same, in all respects,
as an ordinary mortgage, given as a security for a loan of money:
but it is a specific lien, in most respects so strongly analogous to
the specific lien of a common mortgage, that they have been almost
altogether regulated by the same principles of equity. But these
securities,—neither the incident, nor the express lien as by mort-
gage,—should not be confounded with mere personal securities, or
pbligations for the payment of money of any class or grade what- f
ever. A bond, promissory note, or simple contract for the payment
of money, in any shape or form, is a personal contract which
surely cannot, either at law or in equity, be assimilated to, or
governed by the principles applicable to a mortgage of any
description.

These plaintiffs do not ask to have their specialty or simple con-
tract enforced as a means of obtaining payment from their debtor.
They do not plant themselves on the mere relation of creditors
against this defendant as their debtor. They are here as vendors
against the defendant as their vendee; and they claim the benefit
of the lien which they hold as an incident of that relationship. As
mortgagees they sue this defendant as the mortgagor of certain pro?
perty, which they ask to have sold to satisfy the balance due upon
that mortgage. This is the light in which this controversy must
be considered; consequently, the statute of limitations in relation
to bonds and simple contracts for the payment of money can have
no sort of application to this case.

This equitable lien is so far a mortgage, that the limitation or

(t) Dinwiddie v. Bailey, 6 Ves, 141; Smith v. Marks, 2 Rand. 449.