BXJTLEE V. DOTJGLASS. 613 �McCbaey, C. J. This cause bas been submitted upon the pleadings and proofs. The facts are as follows : The com- plainants, being the owners of the real estate described in the bill, contracted to sell the saùie to B. W. Lee and Alfred Doug- lass. Lee gave notes for the purebase money, and complain- ants, retaining title in themselves, gave a bond «onditioned for a conveyance upon payment of the notes. ■ �The purchase-money notes are still beld unpaid by com- plainants, who bring this suit to enforce their vendor's lieh. The purchasers, B. W. Lee and Alfred Douglass, "sbîd the land tothe defendant Thomas Dôiïglass, making'tohiin a deed,"under which he entered into possession and bad beld fbe same for a period of about 18 years prior to the commenceofent of this suit. Tbere is a plea of the statute of limitations. �1. The supreme court of this state bave decided that tbere is no statutory bar to a suit in equity to foreclose a vendor's lien for the purebase money of real estate where the vendpr bas not parted with the legal title. Hall v. Denckla, 28 Ark. 510. Wbether, therefore, a federal court of equity in this state sbould, by analogy, adopt as the period of limitation the lengtb of time required to bar an action at law for the purchase money, or an action of ejectment for the land, or whetber the payment of the purchase money and satisfaction of the lien will only be presumed after tbelapseof 20yeàrs, is a question of equity law to be determined by a resort to the recognized authorities and sources of informatioû on equity jurisprudence. �In the determination of sncb a question pf equity law the federal and state courts appeal to the same sources of Infor, mation, and the decisions of either are not binding on the other. Johnston v. Roe, 10 Cent. Law Jour. 328, [S. C. 1 Fed. Eep. 692,] and cases cited. �2. The defendant Thomas Douglass was not an innocent purchaser without notice, because bis grantors bad only an equity in the land. He was bound to take notice of the fact tbat the legal title was in complainants, and beld as security for the unpaid purebase money. The protection extended by a court of equity to a honafide purchaser belongs only to the ����
