(after stating the case). 'In a Court of law an acknowledgment of payment of the consideration by the bargainor in his deed, is a bar to a recovery of any part of it, as decided in Lowe v. Weatherby, 4 D. & B., 212; Mendenhall v. Parish, 8 Jones, 105; Hudson v. Critcher, Ibid., 485, and in other cases.
But in equity the estoppel may be put out of the way upon clear proof of mutual mistake, and the money due decreed to be paid. Wesson v. Stephens, 2 Ired. Eq., 557.
The only question brought up by the appeal is as to the correctness of the ruling of the Court that the plaintiff’s claim, upon the evidence given in, was not a debt for the purchase money, so that execution could go against the land, superseding the homestead exemption, and that, as such, it *453had been extinguished by the arrangement between the parties.
We do not attribute this effect to what was done in the premises. The defendant has never paid this portion of the purchase money to any one, and he still owes it. The debt was not discharged, but still subsists in full force against the defendant, and the only change produced, so far as he is concerned, is to substitute an assignee in place of the former creditor, but without in any way affecting the character of the indebtedness, as contracted in the purchase of the land. Most unquestionably the provision in the Constitution that “ no property shall be exempt from sale for taxes, or for payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of said premises” (Art. 10, §2), does not relieve the land from liability to sale under execution for the residue of purchase money still owing by the debtor and simply passing from the plaintiff in his capacity as administrator to himself personally. The cases cited in the brief of the defendant’s counsel do not support his contention that a new debt has been contracted, the consideration of which was the extinguishment of the former.
In Whitaker v. Elliott, 73 N. C., 186, notes against a third person were transferred by the vendee’s endorsement, and accepted as payment of the purchase money. This was held by the Court to be an obligation for which the land could be levied on and sold, free from the homestead exemption.
In Fox v. Brooks, 88 N. C., 234, the defendant agreed, in paying for the land, to take up a note on which the vendor was bound, and failed to do so. It was declared that the sum so to be paid remained as purchase money, and was paramount to the homestead in its 'claim to be satisfied, under final process, out of the land.
In Brodie v. Batchelor, 75 N. C., 51, the decision was, that a loan of money to the vendee to enable him to pay for the lot bought, and which was so used, did not subrogate the lender to the position and to the possession of the rights of *454the vendor, who had been paid, and the debt could in no proper sense constitute an obligation for unpaid purchase money.
The true test is this: Does the vendee owe the purchase money, or any part of it? and if so, the debt comes within the constitutional provision, and it is immaterial to whom the money is due. The assignee, when it is assigned, becomes the owner of the debt, but it is still a debt incurred in making the purchase. Nor is it material whether the debt exists in the form of a note or bond or in a verbal contract it is equally capable of being transferred. Ponton v. Griffin, 72 N. C., 362.
The transaction is simply this : The defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff personally the debt he owed him as administrator, if the latter would advance the amount due in settling the ¡idministration account, and the legal effect was an assignment of the debt — not its satisfaction. There is error. The nonsuit must be set aside and a new trial awarded.
Error.