Case Name: LODWICK AND OTHERS v. JOHNSON AND GLAZE
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-04
Citations: 1 Wright 498
Docket Number: 
Parties: *LODWICK AND OTHERS v. JOHNSON AND GLAZE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
*LODWICK AND OTHERS v. JOHNSON AND GLAZE.
Priority of lien — holder of two, one in which another has an interest may he compelled to exhaust the exclusive lien first — equity—notice.
It is a well-settled rule that where two have a lien on one piece of property, and the lien of one of them includes another piece of property, he shall first exhaust that subject to his exclusive lien, and resort to the remainder subject to both only for the residue.
Those who deal with equities, must notice the extent of the equities at their peril, as they can only take what the holder has to convey.
In Chancery. The bill claims the foreclosure and sale of twenty-five acres of land held by mortgage, and for the conveyance and sale of twenty-five and a half acres of land, of which Johnson held only the title bond of Glaze; both tracts were mortgaged to secure the payment to the complainants of certain notes.
Johnson has not answered. Glaze answers, and disclaims all knowledge of, or interest in the twenty-five acres; but as to the twenty-five and a half acres, asserts a lien on it for a debt due him by Johnson, for which he pledged the land with him after the date of the mortgage. He admitted that at the time of the pledge of the bond with him, he knew of the mortgage.
Clough, for the complainants,
claimed an order of sale of the twenty-five acres, of which Johnson had the fee, and that Glaze should convey to the complainants the other twenty-five and a half acres.
S. M. Tracy, contra,
insisted that no case was made to charge Glaze; nor was there any proof of what sum was due to the plaintiffs.

Opinion:
COLLETT, C. J.
The question of notice has little to do with this controversy. Glaze only claims to assert his prior lien on the twenty-five and a half acres, the title bond for which he gave, and afterwards received the same in pledge for advances. Those who deal with equities can only take what the holder has to convey, and must notice the extent of the interest at his peril.
But there is no proof of anything due to the complainants. Where are the notes? If unpaid, why are they not produced? If paid or transferred, the complainant cannot proceed.
It is a well-settled rule, that where two have a lien on one piece of property, and one of them'has a separate lien on another piece, he shall first exhaust that on which he has an exclusive lien, and charge the property jointly held only for the residue. Apply that rule here, and the twenty-five acres must be first sold. The case is referred to a master to take an account of what is due the complainants, the value of the several tracts, &c., and is continued for report.