6TEVEN8 V' 14- <fc N. B., 00. 687 �The state foreclosed and became the purcaser of the lands, which she granted to another corporation, the 'defendant in the Chamberlain suit. Chamberlain was holder of some of the state bonds, the payment of which was secured by the trust conveyance, and sought to have a lien upon the land declared in his f avor. �In the case at bar, as in that case, the state was primarily liable to the holder of the bonds. In the case at bar, as in that case, the state reserved to itself the right of foreclosure and disposition of the property. In deciding that case, Jus- tice Field, after stating the position of the complainarit, viz., "that the interest which the state took undef the trust deed and mortgage was only the right to hold them as security against loss upon its 'bonds; ♦ * * that this interest was not changed by foreclosure of the mortgage and by purchase of the property by the state," uses the following language : "The state was primarily liable to the bond holders, and it was only between her and the company that the relation of principal and surety existed. It may be doubted whether the bond holders could call upon the company in any event. The indorsement made by the president simply transferred the bonds ; it was not the act of the company. Be that as it may, whatever right the plaintiff had to compel the application of the lands received by the state to the payment of the bonds held by him, it was pne resting in equity only. It was not a legal right arising out of any positive law or any agreement of the parties. ït did not croate any lien which attached to and foUowed the property. It was a right to be enforced, if at ail, only by a court of chancery against the surety. But the state being the surety here it could not be enforced at ail, and, not being a speciûo lien upon the property, cannot be enforced against the state's grantees." �This was said to be the law of that case, even if the bond holders could have called upon the company for payment. But, laying this feature aside, the analogies are as before stated, and whatever right the plaintifEs have to claim benefit from the security rests here, as in that case, as a mere equity. There was no legal right, because the law did not impose one, ����
