(i) Trotter v. Evans, 27 Miss. 772.

(j) Fisher v. Johnson, 5 Ind. 492; Nazareth v. Lowe, 1 B. Mon. 257; Warner v. Van Alstine, 3 Paige, Ch. 513.

(n) 2 Story, Eq. Jur. §1020; Ex parte Langston, 17 Ves. Jr. 227; Pain v. Smith, 2 Mvl. & K. 417; Maudeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Rockwell v. Hobby, 2 Sandf. Ch. 9.

(o) Norris v. Wilkinson, 12 Ves. Jr. 192; Chapman v. Chapman, 3 Eng. L. & Eq. 70; 13 Beav. 308; Ex parte Coming, 9 Ves. Jr. 115.

(p) Russel v. Russel, 1 Bro. C. C. 269.

(q) Ex parte Whitebread. 19 Ves. Jr. 209.

(r) Mandeville v Welch, 5 Wheat 277; Rockwell v Hobby, 2 Sandf. Ch. 9. In this case the court held, that an advance of money to pay off a mortgage, at the request of the mortgagor, upon an agreement that the mortgage should be assigned to the one paying the money, even though there was in fact no assignment of toe mortgage, gave the paver an equitable lien on the estate so relieved; also, that evidence of such a payment of money by a testator, with the further evidence of the finding the mortgagor's title-deed among

Rhode Island, (s) * Georgia, (t) and South Carolina, (u)l and seems to be recognized in Maine, (v)2 ••

Partners and other joint traders have, as between themselves, an implied equitable lien upon the joint property, for the payment of the joint obligations, (w) Under this principle it is held, that the assignees of a partner, individually bankrupt, can obtain no share of the partnership effects until they first satisfy all that is due from him to the partnership, (x) And the rule is the same as to all persons claiming under an individual partner, (y) But the joint creditors of a firm have no lien upon the partnership property, so as to prevent a bona fide disposition thereof by the firm, upon a dissolution or winding-up of the concern, (z) 3 the testator's papers, this fact not being otherwise accounted for, would establish an equitable mortgage in favor of the executors of the testator.

(s) Hackett v. Reynolds, 4 R. I. 512.

(t) Mounce v. Byars, 16 Ga, 469.

(u) Welsh v. Usher, 2 Hill, Ch. 170; Hntzler v. Phillips, 26 S. C. 136.

(v) Hall r. McDuff, 24 Me. 311.

(w) Per Ld. Tenterden, C. J., in Hol-derness v. Shackles, 8 B. & C. 618; 3 M. & R. 25; Foster v. Hall, 4 Humph. 346; Fitzpatrick v. Flannagan, 106 U. S. 648; Evans v. Bryan, 95 N. C. 174.

(x) Holderness v. Shackles, 8 B. & C. 618, 8M.&R. 25. A, B, and C, together with others, were part-owners of a ship engaged in the whale-fishery. The usual mode of managing the cargo was, that, on the arrival of the vessel at her homeward port, the whalebone was taken into the possession of B, and sold by him, and the proceeds applied toward the discharge of the ship's expenses. The blubber was deposited in a warehouse, rented by C, by the owners of the ship; and the oil produced from it was then put into casks, each owner's share being weighed out, and placed separately in the warehouse in casks marked with his initials. After the division, the practice was for the warehouseman to deliver to each part-owner his share of the oil, unless notice was given by the ship's husband that the partowner's share of the disbursements was not paid. In that case the warehouseman used to detain the oil till the demand had been satisfied. The ship having arrived from her voyage, in 1825, the above course was pursued. The share of A was twenty-nine tons, which was set apart in the warehouse, with his initials on the casks. In January, 1826, A became bankrupt. Twenty tons of A's share had been delivered to him before his bankruptcy; the remaining nine tons continued in the warehouse at the time of his bankruptcy. In the same month the ship's husband, C, gave orders to the warehouseman not to deliver to A the remaining oil, as his share of the disbursements had not been paid. The assignees of A brought an action of trover against C for the residue of A's oil; and the court held, that the other part-owners, under these circumstances, had originally a lien on it for A's portion of the disbursements of the ship, and that this right was not divested by the separation of his share from the residue, and placing it in casks marked with his name, or by the charge of rent to him for warehouse room.

(y) Holderness v. Shackles, 8 B. & C. 618, 3 M. & R. 25; Heydon v Hey don, 1 Salk. 392; Chapman v. Koops, 3 B. & P. 289; Smith, Mer. Law, 28, Taylor v. Fields, 4 Ves. Jr. 398, per Ld. Mansfield.

(z) Ex parte Baffin, 6 Ves. Jr. 119.

1 And New Jersey, Gale v Morris, 29 N. J Eq. 222.

2 In other States the doctrine is rejected. English v. McElroy, 62 Ga. 413, Van-meter v. McFaddin, 8 B. Mon. 435, 438; Gothard v. Flynn, 25 Miss. 58; Bloom v. Nogtle, 4 Ohio St. 45 (semble); Shits v. Dieffenbach, 3 Pa. St. 233; Spencer v. Haynes, 12 Phila. 452; Meador v. Meador, 3 Heisk. 562. But if there is a written agreement that the deposit of title deeds shall be held as collateral security, it is held in Pennsylvania to constitute an equitable mortgage. Luch's Appeal, 44 Pa. 519; Spencer v. Haynes, supra.

3 Partnership creditors have no lien on firm effects, which may be transferred bona fide and for a consideration to one or more partners or strangers, until acquired by legal process. Coakley v.Weil, 47 Md. 277. - K.

Where two persons join in the purchase of an estate which is conveyed to both, but one of them pays all the money, the * latter has no lien for the surplus so paid by him. (a) But expenses paid by one joint owner, in the repairs and alterations of an estate, attach as a lien upon the property, (b)l A covenant to convey and settle particular lands - as, for example, in contemplation of marriage - is treated in equity as a lien upon those lands, holding them, whatever hands they may happen to fall into, either by operation of law or by act of party. We apprehend, however, that courts of law, wherever any distinction remains between equity and law, would regard such a covenant as creating a mere personal obligation.(c)