IGLEHART v. ARMIGER. 527

sale of a mere equitable interest,(o) such as that sold to Armiger.
But I can see no ground for any such distinction between the sale
of a legal and an equitable estate. The lien is given to the vendor,
not because of the quantity of interest, or the nature of the estate
sold; but, because it would be unjust that the purchaser should hold
that absolutely for which he had not paid; and because, until the
whole purchase money has been paid, the contract of purchase
cannot be considered as complete. Now these reasons apply as
obviously, and as satisfactorily to the sale of an equitable as to
the sale of a legal estate. The existence of two equitable liens
upon the same real estate can be in no respect more incompatible
than the contemporaneous existence of two encumbrances of any
other description. They must be permitted to take according to
their priorities and other equities, as usually adjusted by this court.
There may be, perhaps, no case like this to be found in the Eng-
lish books; but it has often occurred in this court, that an equitable
lien has been held to arise on a sale of a mere equitable estate,
which lien has been enforced accordingly.(p)

There is then nothing in the authorities adduced, which shews
it to have been held by this court, either that an equitable lien was
in any manner assignable unconnected with the land itself which
was the subject of the contract of purchase; or that an assign-
ment in any form of the bond or note given to secure the pay-
ment of the purchase money carries with it the equitable lien held
by the vendor or assignor of such bond or note.

I will here take occasion to repeat, that, in all sales under a
decree, the court itself must be considered as the vendor; since the
contract is made with the court, through the instrumentality of its
trustee or agent, for the benefit of all concerned.(o.) And con-
sequently, the equitable lien, thus held by the court, may, and has
always been treated as such a lien would be considered if held
by a natural person; but which can in no manner whatever be
affected by any act of the trustee not expressly sanctioned by the
court itself. The powers and duties of a trustee are always speci-
fied in the decree, or orders by which his acts are directed. He
was, in this instance, directed to collect and distribute the purchase
money, by the order of the 1st of April 1818, and by the act of

(o) Bayley v. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. 50.—(p) Ghiselin v, Fergusson, 4 H. St J. 522;
Pinkney v. Mayo, MS. 19th April 1314, 8& 14th April 1821.—(g) Savile #. Savile,
1 P. Will. 747; Exparte Minor, 11 Ves. 561.