664 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.

a privilege of the vendor. These principles of equity I take to
have been long and well established here as well as in England, (t)

It may be regarded as a general rule, that the obtaining of one
security does in no instance operate as a suspension or extinction
of any other security for the same claim; and that the party may,
in all such cases, obtain redress either on the one or the other of
them at his option. This rule might be exemplified by a great
variety of cases to be met with in the books, (u) The case under
consideration is an example shewing, that where a purchaser has
given bond with surety to the trustee, as required by the decree,
there are three distinct securities for the payment of the purchase
money. The equitable lien, under which the land may be re-sold.
The personal liability of the purchaser, upon which he may be pro-
ceeded against in a summary way by attachment. And the bond
upon which the purchaser and his sureties may be sued at law.
There can be no doubt, that the payment of the purchase money
may be enforced by proceeding upon either one of these securities
separately; since there is nothing in either incompatible with the
contemporaneous existence of the others; nor does the acceptance
of any one operate as a suspension or extinction of the others; or
imply an abandonment of them.

But there is a material difference between securities for the pay-
ment of money and the remedies founded upon such securities;
for, although there may be nothing in such securities themselves
inconsistent with their mutual existence; yet the institution of a
suit upon one may, from its nature, amount to a suspension or
waiver of the remedy upon the others at the same time. The
English statutes require, that the party who sues out a commission
of bankruptcy shall give bond in the penalty of £200, to answer
to the party grieved by falsely and maliciously suing out such com-
mission; and the giving of such bond, it has been held, does not
take away the common law remedy by action on the case. But
the party grieved cannot sue on both at the same time; because in
the action on the case he submits to the jury whether he is enti-
tled to less or more than £200; and in the action on the bond he
decides, that his claim is neither more nor less than the penalty of
£200. But he cannot have that penalty in addition to what a

(t) Meluy v. Cooper, ante 199, note; Purnell v. Comegys, 1806, per Kilty, Chan-
cellor; Bailie v. Harrison, 1806, per Kilty, Chancellor; Moreton v. Harrison, 1 Bland,
491; Iglehart v. Armiger, 1 Bland, 519.—(u) Ante 655.