
    W. E. Butler v. J. H. Williams et als.
    
    Estoppel. Vendor's Lien. Waiver. The complainant, although having retained an express lien for purchase price on the lot, permitted the administrator of his vendee to suggest the insolvency of vendee’s estate, and was a witness to show the title of his vendee to the lot in the insolvent proceedings, the vendor’s claim being the principal debt against the estate of vendee, for the payment of which as well as the other debts proved and allowed, the lot was ordered sold. The vendor was the competing bidder at the sale of the lot, his bid having been the next highest to the purchaser’s at this sale. Held, such conduct was a waiver of his lien’by the vendor, and he is estopped from seeking to enforce any lien against the purchaser and must look to the proceeds of the sale for payment of his debt.
    FROM MADISON.
    Appeal from decree of tbe Chancellor. John L. Williamson, Ch.
    
      Bullock & Bullock for complainants.
    ALEXANDER W. Campbell for defendants,
    who said, the case is clearly within the rule laid down by Mr. Kent in the case of Wendell v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johnson’s Ch. Ri., 353, that “a person looking on and suffering another to purchase and expend money on land, without disclosing or making known his claim on the land, will not be permitted afterward to assert his legal title against such innocent purchaser.” See also 8torrs & Broolcs v. Balter, 6 Johns. Ch. R., 167; Patton v. MeOlure, Mar. & Yerg., 339, and authorities cited; 1 Story Eq., 385. In the case of Barham v. Turbeville et al., 1 Swan, 437, Judge Totten, in delivering the opinion of the Court, refers to the above cases and says: “ This doctrine indeed goes still further, and demands that the true owner shall speak out and forbid the sale.” It is held in this case, that where actual fraud is established, the Courts will extend the rule even to infants. A grosser fraud than this could not be- conceived. The complainant encourages the filing of the bill, was a witness in the cause, attends the sale, becomes one of the principal bidders, and after his neighbor purchases the property of an insolvent 'estate and pays his money for it, he then turns around and asserts his claim, which the parties present had a right to believe from his conduct had either been discharged or waived, if in fact they had any actual knowledge that he had any. In the case of Thompson v. Dawson, 3 Head, 384, Judge McKinney, in delivering the opinion of the Court, held that a vendor wbo bolds a lien upon land for the payment of the purchase money, by affirmative acts and declarations induces the belief, on the part of a subsequent purchaser prior to his purchase, that he renounces or waives his lien, the vendor thereafter can not enforce his lien to the prejudice of such purchaser.
    With whom were TomliN & Tomlin,
    who cited and relied on the following authorities: 2 Par. Con., p. 340; 1 Swan, Barham v. Twrbemlle, 437; 1 Story Eq., 'ss. 384 — 5; 3 Hill, Dezett v. Odell, 219; 1 John. Ch. Pep., Wendell v. VanBensselaer, 354; 6 John. Ch. Pep., Storrs v. Baker, 169; 11 Hum., 433, Morris v. Ware; where Judge Totten quotes from the above case, see p. 434 ; 3 Sneed, JDechard v. Blanton, 373.
   NicholsoN, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

. The only question in this case is, whether or not complainant is estopped from enforcing, or has waived his vendor’s lien.

Complainant had retained an express lien on the lot for the purchase money. Williams, the debtor, who had the legal title, subject to the vendor’s lien, having died, his administrator filed his bill to have the lot sold for the payment of his intestate’s debts, the debt to complainant being among them, and the principal debt. Complainant was cognizant of the proceeding, and encouraged and aided in obtaining a decree, becoming a witness to show that the title was in the intestate.

The decree of sale was made, and at the sale complainant was present, and was the competing bidder against the purchaser. It is not shown that complainant said any thing by which it was to be inferred that he waived his lien, but by bidding for the land he indicated by his acts to the purchaser that he would get a good title- His bidding could bear no other interpretation, except that he was looking to the proceeds of the sale for the satisfaction of his debt, and, of consequence, that he no longer claimed to look to the lot for the satisfaction of his lien, otherwise than by the sale then being made. The purchaser had a right to so interpret the conduct of complainant, and so bidding and purchasing, he took the lol free from the lien of complainant.

The cases of Barham v. Turbeville, 1 Swann, 437; and Thompson v. Dawson, 3 Head, 384, fully sustain the decree of the Chancellor, and we affirm it.  