|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RIDGELY v. IGLEHART. 545
upon a contract intended and allowed only to operate as a mere
private security, (k)
There are several instances in which, by express legislative
enactment, it is declared, that a bond given to the State shall be a
lien, and bind the real estate of the obligors for the payment of the
debt. In one of those enactments a special and summary course
of proceeding is prescribed for obtaining judgment against the
obligors. But nothing is said in any of them as to the mode in
which the benefit of the lien is to be obtained where the obligor
may have aliened his land after having given such a bond. Upon
which it has been held that the lands upon which such a statutory
lien had been fastened, might be taken in execution under a fieri
facias in whosesoever hands or possession they might be found. (f)
The lien of which alone this plaintiff can have any benefit what-
ever, either at law or in equity, is that, and only that which has
been secured to him by the act to direct descents, as it was under
that law the sale was made for the purpose of effecting a partition,
upon which a share of the purchase money was awarded to this
plaintiff with a bond and lien, given as prescribed to secure its
payment. The positive provisions of the last general act to direct
descents, as regards the matter under consideration, will be best
understood by adverting to the previous enactments upon the same
subject. As to which it will be proper to premise, that where a
partition could not be made of the lands descended among the heirs,
without loss or disadvantage, these acts of Assembly prescribed
two modes of effecting a division of their value; first, that one of
the heirs should be allowed to elect to take the whole at a valuation
on his becoming bound to pay to each of the other heirs his due
proportion; and secondly, if no one of the heirs would elect to take
the whole upon those terms, that then the land should be sold, and
the proceeds of sale divided among them. In both cases there is
a sale, in the one to the heir electing to take^ and in the other to a
purchaser; and, therefore, there was a like propriety in both cases
in having the payment of the purchase money well secured,
The matter under consideration is then as to the nature of the
security given, according to the provisions of these laws, for the
payment of the purchase money, where a sale has been made in
(k) Ex parte Usher, 1 Ball & Bat. 197. —(l) 1769, ch, 14, s. 12; 1773, ch. 26, s.
9; 1791, ch. 85, s. 9; 1792, ch. 38, s. 3; 1799, ch. 80, s. 5 and 17; 1802, ch, 100, s.
12; Lane v. Gover, 3 H. & McH. 394,
69 v. 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
