Case ID: shan-cas_1/html/0153-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McKinney, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROBINSON v. COOPER ET AL.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 218-219.)
    Nashville,
    December Term, 1859.
    VENDOR’S LIEN. Implied lien waived by taking other security.
    The acceptance of any distinct, independent security by the vendor, as the acceptance of the note or obligation of the purchaser with security, or of a third person, indorsed by the purchaser, will be a waiver of the vendor’s implied or equitable lien for the purchase price of land conveyed. [See Meigs’ Dig., sees. 2452-2459.]
   McKinney, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

We concur in opinion with the chancellor that no lien exists in favor of the complainant, as vendor of the land in question. It appears that on February 21, 1857, • the complainant sold and conveyed to the defendant, Wood, a tract-of land lying in Rutherford county, of 114 acres, at the price of $1,800, and in satisfaction thereof, Wood indorsed to him two promissory notes, made by third persons, waiving demand and notice. Afterwards, namely, on the 4th of July, 1859, Wood conveyed said tract of land to the defendant, Cooper, to indemnify him against certain liabilities as the surety of Wood. The bill contains charges of fraud and other grounds of relief, which we think are not tenable. The only question necessary to be determined is, whether a lien can be asserted by the complainant to enforce payment of part of, the purchase money which still remains unpaid.

It is well settled that the vendor’s acceptance of the note, obligation, or other evidence of debt, involving alone the personal responsibiliy of the purchaser, will not, of itself, be regarded as a waiver of the lien, unless there be accompanying circumstances showing an intention to1 abandon the lien, or which would malee it inequitable to insist upon it, either as against the purchaser or third person. And, on the other hand, it is equally well settled that the acceptance of any distinct, independent security, by the vendor, for the purchase money will amount to' a waiver of the lien; unless there be satisfactory evidence of an agreement, express or implied, not to. rely exclusively on the security so taken, but to retain the implied lien. And the cases are numerous that the acceptance of the note or obligation of the purchaser, with security, or a third person, indorsed by the purchaser, will be a waiver unless, the presumption be repelled. 2 Meigs’ Digest, pp. 920, 921 [1st ed]; 1 Leading Cases, 243, 244.

There is no evidence in the record of an intention to retain the lien, and it must be held to have been waived. This point is decisive of the case, without noticing another ground upon which the complainant would probably be repelled.

Decree affirmed.