There are certain liens which exist only in equity; such as vendor's and vendee's liens in sales of real estate, lien by deposit of deeds, partnership liens, and liens pendente lite.

A vendor's lien on land holds for any part of the purchase-money which remains unpaid, against all persons except a purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice. This lien attaches without any agreement, and whether the conveyance has taken place or not. (y)l But a mere volunteer who pays nothing for his deed, cannot set up want of notice against the claim of his grantor's vendor, (z) and if a manifest intention appears that such a lien shall not exist, equity will not enforce the claim, (a) An agreement of the vendee to assign his interest, seems not to divest

Allen, 573; Blaurett v. Woodworth, 31 N. Y. 285; Dore v. Sellers, 28 Cal. 588; Har-beck v. Southwell, 18 Wis! 418; Heltzell v. Hynes, 38 Mo. 482; North Church v. Jevne, 32 111. 214; Bennett v. Shackford, 11 Allen, 444; Gordon v. Torrey, 2 Mo-Carter, 112; Blythe v. Pulteney, 31 Cal. 233; Spencer v. Barrett, 35 N. Y. 94; Koenig v. Mueller, 39 Mo. 165; Mulrey v. Barrow, 11 Allen, 152.

(y) Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 Ves. Jr. 329; Selby v. Selby, 4 Russ. 336; Poll-fexen v. Moore, 3 Atk. 273; Charles v.

Andrews, 9 Mod. 152; Smith v. Hibbard, 2 Dickens, 730; Nives v. Nives, 15 Ch. D. 649; McLearn v. McLellan, 10 Pet. 625: Dubois v. Hull, 43 Barb. 26; Gil man v. Brown, 1 Mason, 191, where there is a full discussion of the subject by Mr. Justice Story.

(z) Burlinghame v. Bobbins, 21 Barb. 327.

(a) Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 Ves. Jr. 329; Brown v. Gilman, 4 Wheat. 255; Richardson v. Ridgley, 8 Gill & J. 87.

1 The doctrine of vendor's lien does not prevail by any means universally in this country, and it has been criticised in some jurisdictions where it is established. The vendor is allowed this lien in Wilkinson v. May, 69 Ala. 33; Stephens v. Shannon, 43 Ark. 464; Gallagher v. Mars, 50 Cal. 23; Francis v. Wells, 2 Col. 660; Ford r. Smith, 1 McA. 592; Wooten v. Bellinger, 17 Fla. 289, 300; Moshier v. Meek, 80 111. 79; Yaryan v. Shriner, 26 Ind. 364; Webster v. McCollough, 61 la. 496; Emison v. Risque, 9 Bush, 24 (see, however, Ashbrook v. Roberts, 82 Ky. 298); Succession of Clay, 34 La, An. 1131; Carr v. Hobbs, 11 Md. 285; Payne v. Avery, 21 Mich. 524; Dunton v. Outhouse, 64 Mich. 419; Law v. Butler, 44 Minn. 482; Pitts v. Parker, 44 Miss. 247; Bennett v. Shipley, 82 Mo. 448; Christy v. McKee, 94 Mo. 241; Reese v. Kinkead, 18 Nev. 126; Acton v. Waddington, 46 N. J. Eq. 16; Chase v. Peck, 21 N. Y. 581; Anketel v. Converse, 17 Ohio St. 11; Hume v. Dixon, 37 Ohio St. 66; Gee v. McMillan, 14 Ore. 268; Kent v. Gerhard, 12 R. I. 92; Jones v. Ragland, 4 Lea, 539; Senter v. Lambeth, 59 Tex. 259; Willard v. Reas, 26 Wis 540. The existence of such a lien is doubted or denied in the following cases: Hall r. Hall, 50 Conn. 104; Soule v. Hurlbnt, 58 Conn. 511; Broach v. Smith, 75 Ga. 159 (statutory); Greeno v. Barnard, 18 Kan. 518; Philbrook v. Delano, 29 Me. 410, 414; Ahrend v. Odiorne, 118 Mass. 261; Ansley v. Pasahro, 22 Neb. 662; Arlin v. Brown, 44 N. H. 102; White v. Jones, 92 N. C. 388; Hiester v. Green, 48 Pa. 96; Rudy's Appeal, 94 Pa. 338; Wragg o. Comptroller, 2 Desaus. 509; Warren v. Branch, 15 W. Va. 21 (statutory). Vt Gen. Laws, 1880, § 1937; Va. Code, 1873, c. 115, § 1, abolish the lien, though it formerly existed in those States.

the original vendor of his lien; nor will a receipt for the purchase-money, if it can be contradicted, defeat the lien, (b) Taking a security for the amount of the purchase-money may or may not defeat it, as the circumstances indicate that the vendor did or did not intend to give credit solely to the person from whom the security is taken. The general presumption was that the lien exists; and that it was for the vendee to show that the taking a security was a waiver;(c) but the prevailing rule appears now to be, that the taking of security is itself a waiver, (cc)l

If a vendor, by any words or acts, induces a purchaser to believe that his lien is waived, he is estopped from enforcing it. (cd) * The lien prevails against a purchaser from the vendee, with notice that the latter gave a promissory note, which is unpaid, for a part of the purchase-money, (d) And where a purchaser of land subject to lien, of which he had notice, sold the land and received the price, this money has been held in equity as a trust-fund to satisfy the lien, (dd) And a vendor's lien holds against a subsequent purchaser with notice of the lien.(de) A waiver obtained by fraud is of course invalided (df) Taking a mortgage on a part of the estate sold, and the vendee's bond for the residue of the purchase-money, will destroy the vendor's lien; and it has been held, that taking a mortgage upon another estate will produce the same effect, (e) If part of the consideration be that the vendee shall pay off existing mortgages, and bonds be taken for the balance, the vendor's lien will hold. (f)

(b) Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 Vet. Jr. 329; Hughes v. Kerney, 1 8ch. & Lef. 132; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1225.

(c) Hughes v. Kerney, 1 Sch. & Lef. 132; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1224; Tierman v. Beam, 2 Ham. 383.

(cc) May ham v. Coombs, 14 Ohio, 428; Williams v. Roberto, 5 Ham. 35; Chilton v. Brarden, 2 Black, 458; Ban tin v. French, 16 N. H. 592; Christy v. McKee, 94 Mo. 241; Wells v. Harter, 56 Cal. 342; Beal v. Harrington, 116 111. 113; Masters v. Templeton, 92 Ind. 447;' Camden v. Vail, 23 Cal. 633; Sullivan o. Ferguson, 10 Mo. 19, 40. But it is said that a vendor does not lose his lien by taking a guaranteed , note for the price, in Burrus v. Koulhac, 2 ' Bush, 39, nor is it extinguished by a mortgage for the price. Anketel v. Convene, 17 Ohio St. 11.

(cd) Thompson v. Dawson, 3 Head, 384.

(d) Gibbon v. Baddall, cited by the Chanc. 15 Ves. Jr. 344; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. §1226; White v. Williams, 1 Paige, Ch. 502.