A contract for the sale of land, where the vendee is given possession of the premises, conveys to the vendee the equitable title thereto.1 While at law the title remains in the vendor as security

1. Fitzhugh v. Maxwell, 34 Mich. 138. Gates on Real Property, Sec. 614A. Midland County Savings

Bank v. Proaty, 158 Mich 656. Harris v. Brown, 172 Mich. 164.

for the performance of the obligation of the contract, yet in equity the contract conveys it to the vendee. The equitable rights of the vendee are alienable, descendable, and devisable in like manner as real estate held by legal title.2

At the death of the vendee, the interest of the estate in the contract passes to the heirs as real property, and not the administrators.

The interest of the vendor is held to be personal property 3 and at the death of the vendor, passes to the administrator of the vendor rather than to the heirs. Notwithstanding several decisions cited below holding that the interest of the vendor is personal property, and descends to the administrator, the Supreme Court has decided in an earlier case 4 that the widow is entitled to dower in the interest of her husband as a vendor in a land contract. A careful examination of the case just referred to will disclose that it is not inconsistent with the subsequent decisions cited in the note.

A clear exposition of the nature of the estate created by land contract can be found in the note containing an excerpt from a recent English case.5

2. Gates on Real Property, 614A. Lewis v. Hawkins, 90 U. S. (23 Wall) 119, 23 L. Ed. 113. Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 765, 28 L. Ed. 1144. Bradley v. Curtis, 79 Ky. 327. Adams v. Cowherd, 30 Mo. 460. Dukes v. Turner, 44 Iowa 575. Fitz-hugh v. Maxwell, 34 Mich. 138.

3. Bowen v. Lansing, 129 Mich. 117 (119-121). City of Marquette v. Iron Co., 132 Mich. 130. Re. Stanton's Estate, 142 Mich. 491.

4. In re. Estate of Pulling, 97 Mich. 376.

5. Pomeroy Equity Jurisprudence, Sec. 126. In the recent case of Laysaght v. Edwards, L. R. 2 Ch. Div. 499, 506, 507, Sir George Jessel, M. R.r states the effect of a contract for the sale of land as follows: "It appears to me that the effect of a contract for sale has been settled for more than two centuries; certainly it was completely settled before the time of Lord Hardwicke, who speaks of the settled doctrine of the court as to it. What is that doctrine? It is that the moment you have a valid contract for sale the vendor becomes in equity a trustee for the purchaser of the estate sold, and the beneficial ownership passes to the purchaser, the vendor having a right to the purchase money, a charge or lien on the estate for the security of that purchase money, and a right to retain possession of the estate until the purchase-money is paid, in the absence of express contract as to the time of delivering possession. In other words, the position of the vendor is something between what has been called a naked or bare trustee (that is, a person without