— It is neither alleged, admitted, nor proved, that when Street purchased from Stocks, he had notice of Wright C. Stanly’s prior purchase from him. But it is insisted on behalf of Stanly, that notice is entirely unimportant; that it is so, only where one. party has the legal, and the other the equitable interest. That the doctrines founded upon it have no application where both parties have an interest of the same kind, to-wit, both legal or both equitable; in such cases priority cf acquisition is the rule by vt Inch the respective rights of conflicting claimants is determined. For this is cited the case of Jones v. Zollicoffer so often in this Court. It it true, that where two persons claim the same thing, both under a legal, or both under an equitable title, there priority of acquisition alone is regarded, and notice is unimportant. Notice is only important where one claims the legal, and the other the equitable estate. In this case, the parties do not claim the same thing; one claims one part of the *317 íand, and the other another part. The equity of Wright C. Stanly is. that Stocks should disencumber his lands from the mortgage, and that as between him and Stocks, the whole mortgage debt should be thrown on the residue 0f the mortgage lands retained by Stocks. This equity is .Í think personal to Stocks, and is not in the nature of a lien on the lands. To affect Street with it, he must when he purchased, have liad notice of the obligation imposed on Stocks, for there was no such incumbrance on the land, as to affect it in the hands of a bona fide purchaser without notice. Had there been notice, I forbear to say what would have been its effects in this case.

But I think Stanly has another equity, which the case presents. It appears, that lie paid the purchase money of that part of the mortgaged premises purchased by him, to the mortgagee. This was a payment by the land, and as in equity the land is the debtor, it discharged the lien pro tanto, from that part which paid it, as to the holders of the other part; and gave the purchaser a right to call upon the mortgagee for all his facilities of enforcing payment out of the other lands, if he, the mortgagee, should levy the balance out of the land thus purchased. For between several purchasers of the mortgaged lands, each one has a right against the others, of compelling every part to bear its burden. Wright C. Stanly's purchase has already borne part of the burden. The Master will estimate what each part is to pay, according to these principles, taking as his guide the report made by the Master of Craven County, as to the amount due, value of each part of the mortgaged lands, and the sum paid by Wright C. Stanly.

— Decree accordingly. *