LODWICK AND OTHERS v. JOHNSON AND GLAZE, 1 Ohio Ch. 498

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 afterwai'ds received the same in pledge for advances. Those who deal with equities can only take what the holder had to convey, and must notice the extent of the intei’est at his peril. But there is no proof of any thing due to the complainants. Where are the notes? If unpaid, why are they not pi’odxxced? If paid or transfei’red, the complainant cannot proceed.

It is a well-settled rule, that whex;e 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 chai-ge the property jointly held only for the residue. Apply that rule here, and the twenty-five aci’es must be fii'st sold. The case is referred to á master to take an account of what is due the complainánts, the value of the several tracts, &c. and is continued, for repoi't.