|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
542 RIDGELY v. IGLEHART.
30th My, 1832. —BLAND, Chancellor. —This case standing
ready for hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been
fully heard, the proceedings were read and considered.
The plaintiff founds his right to sue this defendant alone and in
this court upon the circumstance of his claim being altogether or
in some essential particulars, of an equitable character only; and
upon the fact, that the property held by this defendant has been
bound for the satisfaction of his claim, and may be followed and
taken by him alone without regard to any other similar and contem-
poraneous claims upon it; and also without regard to the man-
ner, or to any one from whom this holder of it may have derived
title after it had become so bound. And all this the plaintiff seems
to conceive, necessarily arises from his being, as he alleges, the
holder of an equitable Hen upon the land.
The term lien is applied in various modes; but, in all cases, it
signifies an obligation, tie, or claim annexed to, or attaching upon
property without satisfying which such property cannot be de-
manded by its owner. (6) Lien, in its proper sense, is a right
which the law gives. But it is usual to speak of lien by contract,
though that be more in the nature of an agreement for a pledge.
And there are liens which exist only in equity, and of which equity
alone can take cognizance, (c) The existence of a lien, however,
and the benefit which may be derived from it, as well as the mode
in which that benefit may be obtained, depend upon principles of
law and circumstances so various, that it is always indispensably
necessary carefully to attend to those particulars by which its very
substance may be materially affected. For all the purposes of the
present enquiry, however, liens may be regarded as of two kinds;
such as are sustained by the principles of common law or of equity
upon the peculiar circumstances of the case; or such as arise out
of positive legislative enactment; but all liens are essentially diffe-
rent from that priority of satisfaction, the right to which is given
by act of Congress to the United States, (d)
A lien given by the common law for the benefit of trade, and the
like, such as that by which a factor may hold the goods of his
principal, or that by which an innkeeper may detain the goods of
his guest, &c., until he is paid, is always associated with posses-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6) Jacob Law Dict. v. Lien. —(e) Gladstone v. Birley, 2 Meriv. 403. —(d) The
United States v. Fisher, 2 Cran. 358; Conrad v. The Atlantic Insurance Company,
1 Peters, 386.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
