Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/97



Appeal from the District Court of Rolette County, Buttz, J.

Affirmed.

Fred E. Harris, for appellant.

The positions of the vendor and purchaser, are analagous to that of a mortgagee and mortgagor, and identical with that in which the mortgagee takes a deed as security for the performance of the mortgagor’s obligations. Miller v. Shelburn, 15 N. D. 182, 107 N. W. 51; Jewett v. Black, 82 N. W. 375, 60 Neb. 173, Dorsey v. Hall, 7 Neb. 460. In re Boyle’s estate, 134 N. W. 590, 128 Ia. 551; Phillis v. Gross, 143 N. W. 473, 32 S. D. 438; McCreary v. McGregor, (Iowa) 167 N. W. 633; Ried v. Gorman, 158 N. W. 780, 37 S. D. 314; Shraiberg v. Hanson, 163 N. W. 1032, 138 Minn. 80.

Cuthbert, Smythe & Wheeler, for respondents.

The purchaser under a contract for deed, does not hold the legal title, having an equitable interest only. Pom. Eq. Juris, § 367; Davie v. Williams, 130 Ala. 530, 30 South 488, 54 L. R. A. 749, 89 Am. St. Rep. 55; Chappell v. McKnight, 108 Ill. 570; Warvelle on Venders, (2 ed.) § 176.

In a great many jurisdictions the rule is laid down that the implied lien of the vender is a personal privilege merely and is unassignable. 27 R. C. L. § 330, and Hecht v. Spears, 27 Ark. 229, 11 Am. Rep. 784; Baum v. Grigsby, 21 Cal. 172, 81 Am. Dec. 153; Avery v. Clark, 87 Cal. 619, 25 Pac. 919, 22 A. S. R. 272,

“And assuming that it.is assignable it has been held that it must be assigned especially and therefore the mere assignment or transfer of a purchase money note does not carry the lien with it." 27 R. C. L. and as a part of § 330.

“The vendor's equitable lien for the purchase price of real estate will not follow the land after it is sold to a bona fide purchaser without notice.” Selby v. Stanley, 4 Minn. 65; Bang v. Brett, 63 N. W. 1067; McMillan v. Rose, 6 N. W. 728 (Ia.); Welburn v. Williams, 9 Ga. 86, 52 Am. Dec. 427.

, J. This is an appeal from an order sustaining the separate