|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RIDGELY v. IGLEHART. 549
money intended to be secured thereby shall be wholly paid. And
therefore it would seem that this statutory lien, thus blended with
such a bond, must be co-extensive with the whole interest of the
heirs of the intestate. But it cannot be so in all cases.
Here it has been shewn, that Reuben Ridgely, one of the heirs,
was the purchaser; and consequently, the bond which he gave,
could not, as to himself, have been intended to secure more than
the amount of the four shares belonging to the other heirs. The
purchase by him, he being one of the heirs, gave him the same sort
of undivided interest in the whole which another purchaser would
have had, who had paid to him his share of the purchase money.
But it appears, that Amelia Ridgely, another of the heirs, became
bound by this bond as the surety of Reuben Ridgely. Whence it
necessarily follows, that she thereby tacitly and totally waived and
extinguished her lien; because, as regards her interest, no bond has
been given to secure her share of the purchase money; and as no
lien can arise but upon a bond given as a security to her; the lien
which would otherwise have so arisen must be considered as hav-
ing been suppressed by this, her own deliberate act, which repu-
diates the existence of any such lien. And, therefore, since she
has thus precluded herself from any such lien upon the land, and
has trusted entirely to the personal liability of her co-obligor
Reuben Ridgely, the purchaser, it follows, that this bond lien ex-
tends no further than as a security for three out of five shares of
the purchase money for which the land sold.
It appears, that Ethelbert Iglehart, another of the five heirs,
brought suit upon this bond; and, on obtaining judgment, sued
out a fieri facias which was levied on this land, and the whole of
it sold by the sheriff to this defendant. This sale must have passed
all the interest of Reuben Ridgely, whose property was ordered by
the fieri facias, to be taken and sold to satisfy the debt due by him
to Ethelbert Iglehart, for whose use the suit upon the bond was
instituted; and that equitable interest of Reuben Ridgely, as has
been shewn, amounted to two-fifths of the whole. But as Ethel-
bert Iglehart caused his execution to be levied upon the very same
land which was bound by the bond lien as a security for the pay-
ment of his one-fifth of the purchase money, and caused the whole
to be sold, he has so obtained satisfaction to the full extent of that
lien, and thereby virtually extinguished it in favour of this defen-
dant, the purchaser at the sheriff's sale, (x)
(x) Jacobs v. Latour, 15 Com. Law Rep. 388.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
