DICKINSON V. WORTHINGTON. 865 �the court, it appears that the purchaser did get the deed without pay- ing anything, and I am of opinion that there was sufficient disclosed by the records of the court to put any one dealing with property upon his guard, and upon inquiry as to why it was that the mortgage had not been given. �The deed itself is dated the sixteenth of July, 1867, the very day that the order was passed requiring that the mortgage sbould be taken simultaneously with its execution ; and, although the deed was not acknowledged until long afterwards, I think a duty was imposed upon any one dealing with the property, not finding the mortgage upon the land records, to know why it had not been given, and to satisfy him- self, at least, that the purchase money had actually gone into the hands of the trustee. The order directed that tho mortgage should be taken simultaneously with the giving of the deed ; and the executing of the deed, without taking the mortgage, was plainly a violation of his duty by the trustee, and subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers had no right to rely simply upon his acknowledgment in the deed that the money had been paid. �I must hold, therefore, that the lien for this $2,000 of purchase money bas not been lost by the execution of the deed by the trustee. �It appearing, upon the whole case, that the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the bill, I will sign a decree for the sale of the lands as prayed. V.10,no.9— 55 ��� �
