Although, Courts of equity must follow the law, we think the foregoing principle applies to these suits. Gregory v. Beasley, 7 Tenn. App. 467; Brown v. Hamlett, 76 Tenn. 732; Lawman v. Barnett, 180 Tenn. 546, 177 S.W.2d 121, 153 A.L.R. 772; Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Paul, 35 Tenn. App. 394, 245 S.W.2d 775; Birdsong v. Birdsong, 39 Tenn. 289; Martin Bank v. Woods et al., 24 Tenn. App. 241, 142 S.W.2d 750; Hasden v. McGinnis, 54 Tenn. App. 39, 387 S.W.2d 631. In our opinion, it would be unjust and inequitable to hold the insurer of Curtis liable for damages inflicted by a motor vehicle which had been sold by the insured and had completely and irrevocably passed from his right of possession and control, simply because the insured had neglected to comply with a provision of the motor vehicle title and registration law by failing to execute and deliver a muniment of title prior to the occurrence of the accident, although the sale and transfer had been completed in every other respect.

So, the wife falling distinctly within the definition of one who has bought land, the purchase money for which has not been paid, cannot resist the enforcement of the vendor's equity against the land". The same court in Martin Bank v. Woods, 24 Tenn.App. 241, 142 S.W.2d 750, was dealing with a situation where the husband bought property from a woman and agreed to pay as a part of the consideration, the seller's note to a third person. The husband took deed to the property in the estate by the entirety.