526 IGLEHART v. ARMIGER.

also transferred to Brewer and Mackubin the debt due from Nicholls
to him: to which assignment Nicholls was privy and assented.
By virtue of all which Brewer and Mackubin became, in fact, the
vendors to whom Nicholls the vendee stipulated to pay the pur-
chase money. The whole contract and relationship of vendor and
vendee were thus passed over to the new parties, and therefore it
was held, that the assignment with the express assent of all the
original parties carried with it the incident equitable lien.(m) But,
in the case under consideration, it is not pretended, that any of
these assignees were ever, in any manner or form, to be considered
as the vendors; or that the interest in the land had been assigned
to them subject to Armiger's contract. These assignees merely
took the chose in action with the bonds as the evidence of it; and
now contend, that the assignment so made to them has, in itself,
given to them the equitable lien originally held by the vendor.
These cases are materially different, and the one cannot in any
manner be applied to sustain the position now contended for in
the other.

The case of Hollingsworth v. Bowie and others, 20th June 1824,
has also been relied on. But no reasons were given for the deci-
sion, and it seems to me, that the judgment of the Chancellor must
have been founded, not upon the assignable nature of an equitable
lien, but upon the ground, that Ray, the surety of Bowie the ven-
dee, with Barber, the holder of the note, had a right to be substi-
! tuted in the place of the vendor.(n) The case of Randall and
others v. White and others, 3d August 1825, has also been spoken
of. But it does not appear, that any such question, as that of
the assignable nature of an equitable lien, could well have arisen
in it; and I am confident, no such point was ever made in that
case.

It will be proper, however, to recollect, that this land has been
twice sold under the authority of this court; first, under the decree
of December 1816, by which the court reserved the legal title with
an equitable lien as against the purchaser John Cross; and secondly,
under the decree of January 1818, by which the equitable estate
of John Cross was sold with the reservation of an equitable lien as
against the purchaser Benjamin Armiger. A doubt has been
expressed whether an equitable lien can arise as an incident to the

(m) Mackreth v. Symraons, 15 Ves. 880.—(n) Ghiselin v, Ferguson, 4 H. & J.
522; White v. Williams, 1 Paige, 502.