When, by a decree for the partition of land, one of the parties is directed to pay to another a certain sum for "owelty of partition,"75 the property received by him on the partition is regarded as subject to a lien for such sum until paid.76

E. 673; Bicknell v. Bicknell, 31 Vt. 498. See editorial note, 14 Columbia Law Rev. 642.

69. Ante, Sec. 274.

70. Union Hall Ass'n v. Morrison, 39 Md. 281; Dehn v. Dehn, 170 Mich. 407, 136 N. W. 453; Hughes v. Stallings, 52 Miss. 375; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Short-ridge, 86 Mo. 662; Field v. Moody, 111 N. C. 353, 16 S. E. 239; Preston v. Brown, 35 Ohio St. 18; Hatcher v. Briggs, 6 Ore. 31; Green v. McDonald, 75 Vt. 93, 53 Atl. 332; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1237; 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 124.

71. Baird v. Jackson, 98 I11. 78; Prentice v. Janssen, 79 N. Y. 478; Alexander v. Ellison, 79 Ky. 148; Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Mich. 30, 19 N. W. 580; 3 Pomroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1240. See Houston v. McCluney, 8 W. Va. 135.

72. Hibbert v. Cooke, 1 Sim. & S. 552; Sohier v. Eldredge, 103 Mass. 345, 351; Broyles v. Wad-del, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 32; Gavin v. Carling, 55 Md. 530; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1237.

73. Franklin Land, Mill & Water Co. v. Card, 84 Me. 528, 24 Atl. 960; Gray v. Cornwall's Assignee, 95 Ky. 566, 26 S. W. 1018; Con-over v. Smith, 17 N. J. Eq. 51, 86 Am. Dec. 247; Ecke v. Fetzer, 65 Wis. 55, 26 N. W. 266.

74. Gardner v. Samuels, 116 Cal. 84, 58 Am. St. Rep. 135, 47 Pac. 935; Beck v. Birdsall, 19" Kan. 550; Watson v. Gardner, 119 I11. 312, 10 N. E. 192; Coffin v. Talman, 8 N. Y. 465; HIte v. Parks, 2 Tenn. Ch. 373; Speers v. Flack, 34 Mo. 101, 84 Am. Dec. 74. See 2 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 2711.