98. Thorn v. Ingram, 25 Ark. 52; Noyes v. Kramer, 54 Iowa, 22, 6 N. W. 123; McClure v. Harris, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 261; Miller v. Stump, 3 Gill (Md.) 304; Warner v. Van Alstyne, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 513; Walton v. Hargroves, 42 Miss. 18, 97 Am. Dec. 429; Martin v. Smith, 25 W. Va. 579.

99. Swan v. Benson, 31 Ark. 728; Woodall v. Kelly, 85 Ala. 368, 7 Am. St. Rep. 57, 5 So. 164; Combination Land Co. v. Morgan, 95 Cal. 548, 30 Pac. 1102; Smith v. Schultz, 23 Idaho, 144, 129 Pac. 640; Eisman v. Whalen, 39 Ind. App. 350, 79 N. E. 514, 1072; Jordan v. Wimer, 45 Iowa, 65; Manly v. Slason, 21 Vt. 271, 52 Am. Dec. 60.

- Transfer of the lien. In some jurisdictions the benefit of the lien is regarded as transferable by the vendor along with the claim for purchase money,4 and there an assignment of the claim for purchase money is regarded as transferring the lien, as merely accessory thereto.5 And in such states the principle of subrogation or "equitable assignment" may be applied, as in the case of mortgages, in favor of one who is forced to pay off the lien to protect himself, he being thereupon substituted in the place of the vendor as regards the lien rights.6 In a majority of the states, however, in which the lien is recognized, it is regarded as personal to the vendor, and not capable of transfer.7

1. Cordova v. Hood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 21 L. Ed. 587; Thornp son v. Sheppard, 85 Ala. 611, 5 So. 334; Stephens v. Anthony, 37 Ark. 571; Sample v. Cochran, 84 Ind. 594; Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 23 Miss. 124, 55 Am. Dec. 79; Ty-dings v. Pitcher, 82 Mo. 379; Ledos v. Kupfrian, 28 N. J. Eq. 161; Willis v. Gay, 48 Tex. 463, 26 Am. Rep. 328.

2. Wiseman v. Hutchinson, 20 Ind. 40; Masich v. Shearer, 49 Ala. 226; Jackson v. Elliott, 49 Tex. 62.

3. Ante, Sec. 572.

4. Lagow v. Badollet, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 416, 12 Am. Dec. 258;

Plowman v. Riddle, 14 Ala. 169, 48 Am. Dec. 92; Johnston v. Gwathmey, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 317, 14 Am. Dec. 135; Sloan v. Campbell, 71 Mo. 387, 36 Am. Rep. 493.

5. Chapman v. Liggett, 41 Ark. 292; Upland Land Co. v. Ginn, 144 Ind. 434, 55 Am. St. Rep. 181, 43 N. E. 443; State Bank of Iowa Falls v. Brown, 142 Iowa, 190, 134 Am. St. Rep. 412, 119 N. W. 81; Hicks' Committee v. Smith, 158 Ky. 752, 166 S. W. 248; Sloan v. Campbell, 71 Mo. 387, 36 Am. Rep. 493; White v. Downs, 40 Tex. 225. Contra, Watson v. Bane, 7 Md. 117; Smith v. Smith, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 420.

On the death of the person entitled to enforce the lien, the right passes, with the claim for the purchase price, to his personal representatives.8

- Waiver. The vendor's lien may be "waived," either expressly or by implication,9 such waiver by implication occurring when the vendor indicates by his conduct an election not to assert the lien. What constitutes proof of such a waiver has been the subject of frequent discussion, and it has been generally agreed that a waiver is not shown by the fact that the vendor takes the personal obligation of the vendee, such as his bond or note, for the unpaid purchase price, this being considered as merely intended to countervail the acknowledgment in the deed of the payment of the purchase money, or to show the time and manner in which the payment is to be made.10 But the taking of

6. Rodman v. Saunders, 44 Ark. 504; Otis v. Gregory, 111 Ind. 504, 13 N. E. 39; Thomas v. Bridges, 73 Mo. 530; Otis v. Gregory, 111 Ind. 504, 13 N. E. 39; Oury v. Saunders, 77 Tex. 278, 13 S. W. 1030; Carey v. Boyle, 53 Wis. 574, 11 N. W. 47.

7. Hecht v. Spears, 27 Ark. 229, 11 Am. Rep. 784; Baum v. Grigs-by, 21 Cal. 172, 81 Am. Dec. 153; Wellborn v. Williams, 9 Ga. 86, 52 Am. Dec. 427; Richards v. Learning, 27 I11. 431, 81 Am. Dec. 239; Hammons v. Peyton, 34 Minn. 529, 9 L. R. A. 56; Pitts v. Parker, 44 Miss. 247; White v. Williams, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 502; Horton v. Horner, 14 Ohio, 437; Cate v. Cate, 87 Tenn. 41, 9 S. W. 231.

8. 2 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1227; Robinson v. Appleton, 124 I11. 276, 15 N. E. 761; Evans v. Enloe, 70 Wis. 345, 34 N. W. 918, 36 N. W. 22; Hurst v. Hensley, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 373; Edwards v. Edwards, 24 Ohio St. 402. See Leeper v. Lyon, 68 Mo. 216.

9. 4 Kent's Comm. 152; Bayley v Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 46, 5 L. Ed. 393; Wilson v. Lyon, 51 I11. 166; Schnebly v. Ragan, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 125, 28 Am. Dec. 195; Dickason v. Fisher, 137 Mo. 342, 37 S. W. 1114.

10. 4 Kent's Comm. 153; Winter v. Anson, 3 Russ. 488; Baum v. Grigsby, 21 Cal. 172, 81 Am. Dec. 153; Koch v. Roth, 150 I11. 212, 37 N. E. 317; Zook v. Thompson, 111 Iowa, 463, 82 N. W. 930; the personal obligation of a person other than the vendee, by way of indorsement, guaranty, or otherwise, is usually regarded as a waiver,11 and the same effect is ordinarily given to the taking of security, such as a mortgage, on the land itself or on other property.12 Taking independent security, however, merely raises a presumption of waiver, which may ordinarily be rebutted by evidence of an agreement or intention that the lien shall still exist.13 A receipt or acknowledgment gage, even an equitable mortgage,18 the signature of the mortgagor is ordinarily necessary.18a It would consequently appear that the lien created in favor of the grantor in such a case may be more satisfactorily compared to a charge created on the conveyance of land.19 As one may, in conveying land, charge it with a payment in favor of a third person, so he may charge it with a payment in favor of himself, whether to satisfy the claim for purchase money, or for other purposes, and it is immaterial in this regard whether the instrument of conveyance is executed by the grantee, he taking the land in any case subject to the specified charge.

Honore's Ex'r v. Blakewell, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 67, 43 Am. Dec. 147; Fish v. Howland, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 20; Christian v. Austin, 36 Tex. 540; Manly v. Slason, 21 Vt. 271, 52 Am. Dec. 60; Madden v. Barnes, 45 Wis. 135, 30 Am. Rep. 703. But the lien is waived if the note or bond of the purchaser is taken as payment of the purchase money. Walton v. Young, 132 Ala. 150, 31 So. 448; Keith v. Wolf, 5 Bush. (Ky.) 646; Koch v. Roth, 150 I11. 212, 37 N. E. 317; Acton v. Waddington, 46 N. J. Eq. 16, 18 Atl. 356; Buckland v. Pock-nell, 13 Sim. 406; Dixon v. Gay-fere, 17 Beav. 421.

11. 4 Kent's Comm. 153; Cordova v. Hood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 21 L. Ed. 587; Gardner v. Knight, 124 Ala. 273, 27 So. 298; Andrus v. Coleman, 82 I11. 26, 25 Am. Rep. 289; Kendrick v. Eggleston, 56 Iowa, 128, 41 Am. Rep. 90, 8 N. W. 786; Carrico v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank of Baltimore, 33 Md. 235; Fonda v. Jones, 42 Miss. 792, 2 Am. Rep. 669; Durette v. Briggs, 47 Mo. 356; Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Carteret Steel Co., 79 N. J. Eq. 501, 82 Atl. 146; Maroney v. Boyle, 141 N. Y. 462, 38 Am. St. Rep.

821, 36 N. E. 511; Follett v. Reese, 20 Ohio, 546, 55 Am. Dec. 472; Marshall v. Christmas, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 616, 39 Am. Dec. 199.

12. 4 Kent's Comm. 153; Kinney v. Ensminger, 94 Ala. 536, 10 So. 143; Avery v. Clark, 87 Cal. 619, 22 Am. St. Rep. 272, 25 Pac. 919; McKeown v. Collins, 38 Fla. 276, 21 So. 103; Baker v. Updike, 155 I11. 54, 39 N. E. 587; Robbins v. Masteller, 147 Ind. 122, 46 N. E. 330; Gnash v. George, 58 Iowa, 492, 12 N. W. 546; Young v. Wood, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 123; Fonda v. Jones, 42 Miss. 792, 2 Am. Rep. 669; Orrick v. Durham, 79 Mo. 174; Jensen v. Wilslef, 36 Nev. 37, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1220, 132 Pac. 16; Schurtz v. Colvin, 55 Ohio St. 274, 45 N. E. 527; Pease v. Kelly, 3 Ore. 417. But that the lien is not waived by taking a mortgage on the land, see Boos v. Ewing, 17 Ohio, 521, 49 Am, Dec. 478; Wasson v. Davis, 34 Tex. 159.

13. Cordova v. Hood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 21 L. Ed. 587; Woodall v. Kelly, 85 Ala. 368, 7 Am. St. Rep. 57, 5 So. 164; Stroud v. Allison, 35 Ark. 100; Avery v. Clark, 87 Cal. 619, 22 Am. St. Rep. 272, 25 Pac. 919; Sanders v. Mcof payment of the price does not involve a waiver of the lien if the price has not actually all been paid.14