|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RIDGELY v.. IGLEHART. 547
maintain an action of ejectment, and recover in his own name the
entire share of the legal estate which had descended to him, in like
manner as if no attempt to effect a partition had been previously
made, (r)
By the last general act to direct descents, under which these
lands descended, and in pursuance of which the sale was made,
and the bond given to the state, it is declared, that such bond shall
be conditioned for the payment of the amount of the purchase
money to the legal representatives of such intestate, in such pro-
portion as each may be entitled to, agreeably to the order of the
court; which bond shall be and remain a lien on the said real
estate until the money intended to be secured thereby shall be
wholly paid; and the said bond shall be recorded among the re-
cords of the county court from which the commission shall have
issued; and in case the commission shall have issued from the
Chancery Court, then the said bond to be recorded in the office of
the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore; and upon such bond,
or an office copy thereof, suit or suits may be instituted against the
obligors therein, or any of them, for any breach of the condition
thereof by any person interested therein. And the plea of non est
factum shall not be received to any such suit unless the same be
verified by the affidavit of the defendant tendering the same, (s)
Here then, and in this case, that lien from which alone this
plaintiff can ask to have any benefit whatever is made to arise al-
together and exclusively from the bond. It is blended and asso-
ciated with that instrument, and is a specific lien which is as much
parcel of the bond as is that of a specific lien of a mortgage. The
existence of two liens at the same time, in favour of the same
party, upon the same estate, and having the same object, are utterly
inconsistent and incompatible with each other; and hence it has
become well established, that the taking of a mortgage of the same
estate to secure the payment of the purchase money waives or ex-
tinguishes the vendor's equitable lien, (t) So here this express
lien, given by this act of Assembly as an incident of the bond,
necessarily excludes and repudiates every thing like a mere equit-
able lien having the same object upon the same estate. And in-
stead of the remedy upon this statutory lien being peculiarly and
exclusively cognizable in a court of equity, as is that upon a pro-
(r) Jarrett v. Cooley, 6 H. & J. 258. —(s) 1820, ch. 191, s. 22—(t) Mackreth v.
Symmons, 15 Ves. 330; Iglehart v. Armiger, 1 Bland, 519.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
