
    PETER F. MAHONE, plaintiff in error, v. DAVID L. HOWARD, et al., defendants in error.
    (Atlanta,
    June Term, 1870.)
    ADMINISTRATOR—SALE OE DECEDENT’S LAND—LIEN FOR UNPAID PURCHASE MlONEY.—M. as the administrator of H., in January, 1865, sold, at public sale, under an order of the Court of Ordinary, certain parcels or tracts of land as the property of his intestate, a portion of which were purchased by one of the distributees of said estate, in his own right, and a certain other portion thereof was purchased by said distributee as the guardian of the other distributees of said estate, and the administrator took the individual notes of the purchasers, in his own right, and as guardian, for the amount for which the land sold, without security, and executed deeds conveying said land to the purchasers thereof, and after-wards filed a bill, alleging that at the time he sold the land, he took the individual notes of the purchasers, and executed the deeds of conveyance, that he believed that the assets of the estate, on final distribution, *would be sufficient to cover the amount for which the land sold, as the distributive shares of the purchasers thereof, but that the emancipation of the slaves belonging to said estate, had left the said purchasers and distributees with scarcely any means to pay the purchase-money for said lands, save the land itself, and the prayer of the bill is, that the purchasers of said land may be restrained by injunction, from selling the same, and that the deeds executed to the purchasers by the complainant, administrator, may be cancelled, and that the purchasers of the land sold at the administrator’s sale may be decreed to convey the lands back to the administrator. It appears on the face of the complainant’s bill, that there were other lands and other property belonging to said estate, the amount and disposition of which, by the administrator, is not shown:
    
      Held, that, since the vendor’s lien has been abolished in this State, the administrator has no equitable lien on the land for the unpaid purchase-money, and that he does not make such a case by his bill as entitles him to the relief prayed for, and that the demurrer to the bill was properly sustained by the Court below.
    
      Equity. Administrators. Before Judge Johnson. Talbot Superior Court. September Term, 1870.
    Mahone’s bill contained the following averments: John Howard died, intestate, in 1863, leaving lands, slaves and other property. Mahone was duly appointed his administrator. He sold some of the personal property and lands. Part of these lands were one hundred acres of number one hundred and thirty-one, fifty acres of number one hundred and fifty, and fifty acres adjoining one Beach, (fully described.) The heirs of deceased were his widow, Harriet Howard, and his children, David L. Howard, his daughter, Mrs. - Howard, adults, and John W. W. and H. E. Howard, minors. Before the Sale of the lands,(which was in January, 1865,) David L. Howard became the guardian of said minors. Supposing that the estate was amply solvent, Mahone allowed David E. Howard to bid at said sale for said lands. He bid off the parcel joining Beach, for himself, at $1,680 00, and the other two lots, as guardian of said minors, at $5,105 00. On the 18th of March, 1865, David E. Ploward gave to Mahone, as such administrator, his individual note for $1,680 00 for the first lot, and his note, as guardian, as aforesaid, for $5,105 00 for the others, each bearing interest *from the first of January, 1865. Mahone thereupon conveyed said lands to David E. Howard individually, and as guardian, respectively, as aforesaid. It appears from the complainant’s bill that there were other lands and property of the intestate, of which no disposition is shown by the administrator. Mahone, at the time, intended to hold said notes, to be used in a final distribution of the effects of the estate, believing that, after paying intestate’s debts, something would be left for distribution between said heirs, and that the slaves, held by said David E. Howard and said minors, was sufficient to make them abundantly able to pay any part of said notes, which they might not be entitled to on such distribution. Emancipation of said slaves, left David E. Howard with scarcely any property besides said lands.
    Intestate’s liabilities are far larger than Mahone supposed when he made said deeds. One Carter has obtained a judgment against David E. Howard and said intestate’s estate for $989 15 principal, $301 10 interest and $.... costs, and holds another note on said David E. and said intestate, for between $400 00 and $500 00, with interest for several yeárs. This note may be reduced, as it was a “Confederate transaction.”
    David L. Howard has applied for leave to sell said lands, and says he intends selling them. Mahone still has said notes, and they are the sole assets with which to pay intestate’s debts. George W. Kellum, who was the security of David L. Howard, as such guardian, cited David E. to appear before the Court of Ordinary, and obtained an order that David D. give other and new security, relieving Kellum, within ten days, or that his letters of guardianship stand revoked. David D. has not given said other security. John Howard has arrived of age, and pretends to have sold his interest in said lands to one James Hawkins.
    If said lands be disposed of, Mahone will be held by intestate’s creditors, liable for the value of said lands, said David L. being insolvent. He prayed process against James Hawkins, George W. Kellum, David L. Howard, and his *said wards, enjoining them “from disposing of said lands, or embarrassing the title” thereof; that any effects of said minors in David D. Howard’s hands be put into the hands of a Receiver; that it be ascertained what David D. owes said minors, and if he does not pay the amount, that Kellum be made to pay it; that said deeds may be can-celled, and that the lands be re-sold to pay intestate’s said debts, and that Mahone be relieved from all personal responsibility in the premises. In January, 1869, Judge Worrill sanctioned said bill. In September, 1869, before his successor, the bill was demurred to, upon the grounds that it was' multifarious, and that it contained no equity. He sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. That is assigned as error. (At December Term, 1870, of this Court, upon a suggestion of a diminution of the record, the case was continued.)
    Marion Bethune, for plaintiff in error.
    Willis & Willis, J. M. Matthews, for defendant.
   WARNER, J.

The error assigned to the judgment of the Court below, in this case, is in sustaining- the demurrer and dismissing the complainant’s bill. In our judgment, the demurrer was properly sustained for want of equity. As the vendor’s lien has been abolished in this State, the administrator had no equitable lien on the land for the unpaid. purchase-money. The riotes for the land were executed by the purchasers, on the 18th of March, 1865, without security, and it is not to be supposed that the administrator, at that time, had much reliance on the slave property of the intestate, as assets for the payment of his debts. Besides, it appears on the face of the complainant’s bill, that there was other land and property belonging to the intestate’s estate, of which no disposition is shown by the administrator, nor is the quantity or value thereof stated.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.  