528 IGLEHART v. ARMIGER.

1817, ch. 46. But it does not appear, that he was in any manner
authorized to assign the bonds; and therefore, I do not see upon
what ground he now assumes the right to appear here as a plain-
tiff, and tell this court of his unauthorized dealing with its business.
But suppose the court could have so ordered by the provisions of
the act of 1817, ch. 46, and he had been directed to assign those
bonds, that assignment would not have carried with it a lien
upon the land until they were paid; or any right to resort to
him, or the court, in case they had not been paid after the assignee
had used due diligence to recover the amount secured by them.(s)
The acts of Assembly giving a lien in certain cases, in connexion
with the bond given by the purchaser, afford strong evidence, that
it never has been considered as following any such assignment
where it was not expressly given by law.(t)

But it is urged, that a decree may be entered up by the default
of some, and with the assent of the others of these defend-
ants; and therefore, the plaintiffs may be permitted to take such
a decree as they can abide by. That might be conceded if the
case itself, as shewn by the bill, was such an one as fell pro-
perly under the cognizance of a court of equity. / That the court
has jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff has a legal capacity to
recover, upon the facts stated in the bill, are positions assumed;
and must plainly appear, by the bill itself, in all cases, to entitle
the plaintiff to a decree, in any form or upon any terms; and to
lay a sufficient foundation upon which the court may rest its judg-
ment. Consent either tacit or express cannot give the court juris-
diction where it has none; or entitle the plaintiff to relief, where,
by his own shewing, it appears he has no capacity to receive it.
Thus far, and to this purpose all courts of justice, as well of law
as of equity, must see, that their judgments and decisions have a
proper and legal foundation to rest upon.(u) But, divesting
these plaintiffs of their unwarranted pretensions to be considered
as the holders of the equitable lien of the original vendor, their
case has no one single ingredient or character of equity about it.
Their remedy, if any, is at law as assignees of the bonds, or upon
the special contract subsisting among the parties.

Whereupon it is decreed, that the bill be dismissed with
costs, &c.

(s) 1785, ch. 72, s. 9.—(t) 1820, ch. 191, s. 20, 21, & 22.—(u) Bac. Abr. tit. Pleas
& Headings, B. 5,1; Dr. Bonham's Case, 8 Co. 239; Clarke v. Conn, 1 Mun. 160.