73,  V.-C.  Wood  appears  to  lay  down  the  rule  that  where
several  persons  are  interested  in  the  proceeds  of  land
directed  to  be  sold  (but  still  unconverted),  and  one  of  them
disposes  of  his  share,  the  act  does  not  apply — aliter  where
one  person  alone  is  interested  in  the  whole  fund  {ib.  p.  77) ;
but  this  seems  to  be  at  variance  with  Brook  v.  Badley,  see
L.  E.,  3  Ch.  674.  A  covenant  (which  cannot  be  satisfied
without  having  recourse  to  the  land  of  the  covenantor)  to
pay  money  to  trustees  to  be  applied  in  charity,  is  within  the
Liens  for  nnpais  act.  Jeffries  v.  Alexander,  8  H.  L.  C.  594.  The  act  applies
purchase-money,  g^^^  ^^  liens  for  unpaid  purchase-money  {Harrison  v.  Har-
Mortgages  oi  toUs,  rison,  1  E.  &My.  71),  mortgages  of  tolls  {KnappY.  Williams,
^-  4  Ves.  430,  n. ;  Ion  v.  Ashton,  28  Bea.  379),  of  railway

undertakings  {Ashton  v.  L.  Langdale,  4  De  G.  &  Sm.  402),
and  of  poor  rates  {Finch  v.  Squire,  10  Ves.  41;  but  as  to
this  case,  see  Edwards  v.  Hall,  6  D.,  M.  &  G.  74),  and  to
the  proceeds  of  growing  crops  {Symonds  v.  Marine  Society,
2  Giff.  325) ;  but  not  to  arrears  of  rent  {Edwards  v.  Hall,
Shares  in  com-  sup.),  to  shares  generally  in  incorporated  or  unincorporated
*"'""^'  joint  stock  companies  having  power  to  hold  latid  (  Thompson

V.  Thompson,  1  Coll.  381  ;  Hilton  v.  Geraud,  1  De  G.  &
Sm.  183;  Ashton  v.  L.  Langdale,  4  De  G.  &  Sm.  402;
Myers  v.  Perigal,  2  D.,  M.  &  G.  599 ;  Watson  v.  Spratley,
10  Ex.  222  ;  Hayter  v.  Tucker,  4  K.  &  J.  243  ;  Edwards  v.
