768 FEDEBAIi BEPOBTEE. �did not intend to divest or impair the lien of the Moyers judgment, or in anywise prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs therein, but intended that the purehaser of the real estate bound by the lien of the judgment should take it subject to that lien. It was not, however, intended that the purehaser Bhould personally assume the payment of that judgment, or be deprived of any right to enforee contribution, or other like right, which the bankrupt himself had. Second. That the dourt did in tend that the purehaser of the bankrupt 's interest in the real estate designated as purparts Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, should take the same charged with the payment of Michael A. McGonigle's legacy of $600, which, by the terma of Jere- miah McGonigle's will, was payable by the bankrupt. �The distinction between the language "subject to the lien of" and "subject to the payment of," as used in the register's report, in relation to said judgment and legacy respectively, is significant. The judgment was not a- debt of the bankrupt but of Jeremiah McGonigle, and hence the purehaser was to take subject to the lien merely. But the legacy was a liabil- ity which the bankrupt had assumed to pay when he accepted the devise under his father's will, and it seems to me clear that the intention was to make the legacy a charge upon and payable out of the interest of the bankrupt in purparts Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, in the hands of the purehaser at the assign- ee's sale. Therefore, I see nothing in this record which calls for amendment so far as this legacy is concerned. The bankrupt himself most certainly could not have called upon his own vendees, James H. Dysert and Daniel Laughman, to contribute to tha payment of that legacy. No more can the purehaser at the assignee's sale do so. But, in the return of sale, the assignee reports the sale to G. I. Davis as "subject to the payment of |759 at the death of Elizabeth Moyers, and the interest thereon, annually, during the life of the said Elizabeth, » * * ♦ -which said encumbrances the said purehaser is ta jiay in addition to his said bid." The deed which the assignee has exeeuted contains similar clauses, I think the return, in so far as it relates to the Moyers judg- ment, was unwarranted, and if permitted to stand may work ����
