82. Parrish v. Hastings, 102 Ala. 414, 48 Am. St. Rep. 50, 14 So. 783; Harris v. Hanie, 37 Ark. 348; Chapman v. Beardsley, 31 Conn. 115; Ross v. Clark, 225 I11. 326, 80 N. E. 275; Hiscock v. Norton, 42 Mich. 320, 3 N. W. 868; Burroughs v. Gilliland, 90 Miss. 127, 43 So. 301; Peters v. Tun-nell, 43 Minn. 473, 19 Am. St. Rep. 252, 45 N. W. 867; Arlin v. Brown, 44 N. H. 102; Brawley v. Catron,

8 Leigh (Va.) 522.

83. Arlin v. Brown, 44 N. H. 102; Burroughs v. Burroughs, 164 Ala. 329, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 607, 137 Am. St. Rep. 59, 50 So. 1025; Koch v. Roth, 150 I11. 212, 37 N. E. 317; Salyers v. Smith, 67 Ark. 526, 55 S. W. 936; Peters v. Tun-nell, 43 Minn. 473, 19 Am. St. Rep. Rep. 252, 45 N. W. 867; Brawley v. Catron, 8 Leigh (Va.) 522.

84. McDonald v. Elyton Land Co., 78 Ala. 382; Cox v. Smith, 93 Ark. 371, 137 Am. St. Rep. 89, 125 S. W. 437; Womble v. Womble, 14 Cal. App. 739, 113 Pac. 353; Patterson v. Edwards, 29 Miss. 67; Welch v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 165 Fed. 561, 91 C. C. A. 399.

85. Harris v. Haine, 37 Ark. 348; Coit v. Fougera, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 195. Contra, Neel v. Clay, 48 Ala. 252; Cordova Coal Co. v. Long, 91 Ala. 538, 8 So. 765.

86. Young v. Harris, 36 Ark. .162; Winters v. Fain, 47 Ark.

493, 1 S. W. 711; Cox v. Smith, 93 Ark. 371, 137 Am. St. Rep. 89, 125 S. W. 437; Harvey v. Kelley, 41 Miss. 490, 93 Am. Dec. 267.

87. Bryant v. Stephens, 58 Ala.

If the consideration for the conveyance of land consists, in whole or in part, of the transfer to tin-vendor of a specific thing- or things, taken at a valuation based on the representations of the purchaser, and these representations are subsequently found to be fraudulent, the vendor, it-has been decided, is entitled to a lien on the land for the difference between their actual value and the fictitious value placed thereon.88

If the purchaser, as a part of the consideration for the land purchased, agrees to assume and pay a particular debt of the vendor to a third person, the vendor has been regarded as having a vendor's lien on the land for the amount of such debt, on the theory that it is in effect an agreement to pay that amount to the vendor himself.89 And it has been decided, on a like theory, that where there is an exchange of lands, an agreement by one of the parties to pay off an incumbrance on the land transferred by him, as part of the consideration, entitles the other to a- vendor's lien to the amount of the incumbrance in case it is not paid off as agreed.90

One who advances money to the purchaser of land in order to enable the latter to pay therefor has no lien on the land analogous to that which would exist value96 and, in some states, subsequent bona fide judgment creditors of the purchaser.97 It takes priority over the dower claim of the widow of the purchaser.98

636; Pratt v. Clark, 57 Mo. 189.

88. Williamson v. Woten, 132 Ind. 202, 31 N. E. 791; McDole v. Purdy, 23 Iowa, 277; Brown v. Pyam, 65 Iowa, 374, 21 N. W. 684; Bradley v. Bosley, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 125; Gee v. McMillan. 14 Ore. 268, 58 Am. Rep. 315, 12 Pac. 417; White v. Street, 67 Tex. 177, 2 S. W. 529. Contra, Ross v. Clark, 126 I11. App. 460; Graham v. Moffett, 119 Mich. 303. 17 Am. St. Rep. 393, 78 N. W. 132.

89. Koch v. Roth, 150 I11. 212, 37 N. E. 717; Strohm v. Good, 113 Ind. 93, 14 N. E. 901; Henson v.

Reed, 71 Tex. 726, 10 S. W. 522. In Pleasants v. Fay, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 237, it was decided that, where the purchaser agreed to pay a supposed incumbrance on the property, and after the conveyance it was discovered that the vendor had paid it, a fact which he had overlooked, he was entitled to a lien for the amount so paid by him.

90. Koch v. Roth, 150 I11. 212, 27 N. E. 317; Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Knapp, 61 Miss. 485; Pratt v. Clark, 57 Mo. 189; Elliott v. Plat-tor, 43 Ohio St.198, 1 N. E. 222.

A subsequent purchaser is regarded as having notice of the lien, so as to take subject thereto, if he knows, or has reason to know, that the purchase price is still unpaid, this being sufficient to put him on inquiry.99 And he is charged with such notice by the fact that the original conveyance contains recitals showing the non payment of the purchase price or any part thereof. That is, a recital in any conveyance in the chain of title showing the non payment of purchase money is sufficient to put a purchaser upon notice of the possibility that it still remains unpaid.1 And while ordinarily such conveyance will appear of record, so that the subsequent purchaser may actually see the recitals, he is, it seems, charged with notice of their purport even though the conveyance is not of record,2 on the theory that a purchaser is chargeable with notice of the recitals in any conveyance in his chain of title.3

260, 5 Am. Rep. 484; Thomas v. Bridges, 73 Mo. 530; Bates v. Childers, 4 N. Mex. 347, 20 Pac. 164; Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Carteret, 79 N. J. Eq. 501, 82 Atl. 146; Texas Land & Loan Co. v. Blalock, 76 Tex. 85, 13 S. W. 12.

96. Bayley v. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 46, 5 L. Ed. 393; Munn v. Achey, 110 Ala. 628, 18 So. 299; Neff v. Elder, 84 Ark. 277, 120 Am. St. Rep. 67, 105 S. W. 260; Koch v. Roth, 150 I11. 212, 37 N. E. 317; Hawes v. Chaille, 129 Ind. 435, 28 N. E. 848; Dance v. Dance, 56 Md. 433; Bang v. Brett, 62 Minn. 4, 63 N. W. 1067; Walton v. Hargroves, 42 Miss. 124, 97 Am. Dec. 429; Traphagen v. Hand, 36 N. J. Eq. 384; Seymour v. McKinstry, 106 N. Y. 230, 12 N. E. 348, 14 N. E. 94; Campbell v. Sidwell, 61 Ohio St. 179, 55 N. E. 609; Craggs v. Earls, 8 Okla. 462, 58 Pac. 637; Lewis v. Henderson, 22 Ore. 548, 30 Pac. 324; Twohig v. Brown, 85 Tex. 51, 19 S. W. 768; Poe v. Paxton's Heirs, 26 W. Va. 607.

97. Webb v. Robinson, 14 Ga. 216; Cutler v. Ammon, 65 Iowa, 281, 21 N. W. 604; Dawson v. Gerard Life Ins. Annuity & Trust Co., 27 Minn. 411, 8 N. W. 142; Hulett v. Whipple, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 224; Johnson v. Cawthorn, 21

N. C. 32, 27 Am. Dec. 250; Gann v. Chester, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 205; Hood v. Hogue, 131 Tenn. 421, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 383, 175 S. W. 531 (attachment lien); see Bay-ley v. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 46, 5 L. Ed. 393. Contra, Aldridge v. Dunn, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 249, 41 Am. Dec. 224; Ringgold v. Bryan, 3 Md. Ch. 488; Walton v. Hargroves, 42 Miss. 18, 97 Am. Dec. 429; Lamberton v. Von Voorhis, 15 Hun (N. Y.) 336; Miller v. Albright, 60 Ohio St. 48, 53 N. E. 490. See Poe v. Paxton, 26 W. Va. 607.