Gouldin

delivered the opinion of 'the Court.

This case may be determined by a simple solution of the question — What was the vendor’s relation to the land after his sale? According to sound principles of equity, sustained by a long current of decisions, he was the vendor with an equitable lien upon the land for the purchase money, and holding the legal title as a security for the enforcement of his lien. (See the case of Haley v. Bennett, 5 Port. 469 , where the question is fully examined; also, Chapman v. Chunn, 5 Ala, 397.)

The vendor in this case had severrl remedies: He might have recovered possession of the premises, in which case, *112 he could only have held until the rents and profits had paid the purchase .money, and then equity would have compelled him to convey to the purchaser.

He might have enforced his lien in a court of equity, and obtained a decree to sell the land, in which case, if the sale had produced more than the purchase money, the surplus would belong to the vendee.

But, under the contract, he had the power of [112] selling, without *the interposition of judicial authority, and having selected this mode as most convenient, can it be reasonably contended that it…