The most important practical result of the application of the doctrine is that upon the death of one of the persons named to benefit by the conversion directed, his beneficial interest will pass according to the character of the property into which conversion is directed to be made. For instance, if land is directed to be sold and the proceeds of sale distributed amongst certain persons named, and one of such persons dies before the sale takes place, his interest, being personalty, will pass to his personal representative rather than to his heir;75 while if land is directed to be purchased for the benefit of certain persons, and one of such persons dies before the purchase is made, his interest, being an interest in land rather than in the money to be paid for the land, will pass to his heir rattier than to his personal representative.76 Likewise, if land is directed to be purchased, the interest of a beneficiary will pass under a general devise of all his lands and not under a bequest of his personalty,77 while if land is directed to be sold the interest of a beneficiary will pass under a general gift of his personalty and not under a general devise of land.78

74. Williams, Settlements, 56, 125; In re Greaves' Settlement Trusts, 23 Ch. Div. 313; In re Cleveland's Settled Estates [1893] 3 Ch. 244; Collins v. Champ's Heirs, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 122, 61 Am. Dec. 179.

75. Cropley v. Cooper, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 167, 22 L. Ed. 109; High v. Worley, 33 Ala. 196; Rumsey v. Durham. 5 Ind. 71; Burnside's Adm's v. Wall. 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 318; Hammond v. Putnam, 110

Mass. 232; Henderson v. Sherman, 47 Mich. 267, 11 N. W. 153; Hand v. Marcy, 23 N. J. Eq. 59; Hood v. Hood, 85 N. Y. 561; Brothers v. Cartwright, 2 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 113, 64 Am. Dec. 563; Collier v. Grimesey, 36 Ohio St. 17; Thorn-man's Estate, 161 Pa. 444. 29 Atl. 84; Wayne v. Fonts, 108 Tenn. 145, 65 S. W. 471; Siter v. McClana-chan, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 280; Williams v. Williams, 135 Wis. 60, 115 N. W. 342.

Furthermore, if land is directed to be sold that the proceeds may be distributed, the widow of one of the beneficiaries of the distribution, who dies before the sale, is not entitled to dower, his interest being personalty.79 And being personalty he may dispose of it by will though, being a minor, he could not so dispose of realty.80

Since, in the case of a direction for the sale of land, and a gift of the anticipated proceeds, the donee acquires no interest in the land, the gift is not invalidated by the fact that, because an alien81 or a corporation of a particular character,82 the donee could not have taken a gift of the land itself, nor does a gift of such proceeds in trust come within a statute as to the creation of trusts in land.83

76. 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1165; Scudamore v. Scudamore, Prec. Ch. 543, Hawley v. James, 5 Paige, 318, 443.

77. 1 Jarman, Wills, 548; Bid-dulph v. Biddulph, 12 Ves. 161; Green v. Stephens, 12 Ves. 419, 17 Ves. 77.

78. 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1164; Stead v. Newdigate, 2 Mer. 521.

79. Phifer v. Phifer, 157 N. C. 221, 72 S. E. 1006; Hunter v. Anderson, 152 Pa. 386, 25 Atl. 538.

80. Allen v. Watts, 98 Ala. 384. 11 So. 646.

81. Du Hourmelin v. Sheldon, 4 Myl. & Cr. 525; Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 563, 4 L. Ed. 460;

Emery's Appeal 83 Conn. 235, 76 Atl. 529 Antice v. Brown, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 448; De Barante v. Gott, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 492; Comm. v. Martin's Ex'rs, 5 Munf. (Va.) 118.

82. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Miller 176 Fed. 284, 100 C. C. A. 176; Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 366, 80 Am. Rep. 311; Draper v. Harvard College, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 273 American Bible Soc. v. Noble, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 201.

83. Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70, 50 N. W. 1103"; In re Kava-naugh's Will, 143 Wis. 90, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 470, 126 N. W. 672; See ante, Sec. 106 (c) note 61

Sec. 119]

Equitable Ownership.

The interest of a beneficiary under a trust for the sale of land and for the distribution of the proceeds, being in the nature of personalty, it is not subject to the lien of a judgment, nor to sale under execution as land.84 His interest is not transferable by him as land,85 nor is it subject to mortgage as such.86 And he has no interest which entitles him to ask for partition

84. Turner v. Davis, 41 Ark. 270; Darst v. Swearingen, 224 111. 229, 79 N. E. 635; Beaver v. Ross, 140 Iowa, 154, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 65, 17 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 640,188 N. W. 287; Cropper v. Gaar's Ex'r 151 Ky. 376, 151 S. W. 913; Green-man v. McVey, 126 Minn. 21, 147 N. W. 812; Clifton v. Owens. 170 N. C. 607, 87 S. E. 502; Morrow v. Brenizer, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 185; Jones v. Caldwell, 97 Pa. 42; In re Adams, 32 R. I. 41, 78 Atl. 521.

There are however occasional decisions by which the interest of the beneficiary was regarded as subject to a judgment against him. Ballenger v. Drook, 101 Ind. 172; Comer v. Light, 175 Ind. 367, 93 N. E. 660, 94 N. E. 325; Smith v. Hensen, 89 Kan. 792, 132 Pac. 997; Sayles v. Best, 140 N. Y. 368, 35 N. E. 636; Williams v. Lobban, 206 Mo. 399, 104 S. W. 58.

These latter decisions appear to be based on the theory that the title to the land was, until sale, in the judgment defendant as heir or devisee, but his title to the land would necessarily be devested by the sale as directed. See remarks of Gibson, C. J., in Allison v. Wil-son, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 333, quoted in Beaver v. Ross, 140 Iowa, 154. 20 L. R. A. N. S. 65, 17 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 640, 118 N. W.

287

85. Pasquay v. Pasquay, 235 111. 48, 85 N. E. 316; Stake v. Mobley, 102 Md. 408, 62 Atl. 963; Gray v. Smith, 3 Watts. (Pa.) 289; In re Adams, 32 R. I. 41, 78 Atl. 524; Contra Matter of Led-rich 68 Hun. (N. Y.) 396, 22 N. Y. Supp. 978.

The interest of the beneficiary may however be transferred by appropriate language, not as an interest in land but as an equitable interest in personalty. Beaver v. Ross, 140 Iowa, 154, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 65, 17 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 640, 118 N. W. 287; Lambert v. Morgan, 110 Md. 1, 72 Atl. 407; Henderson v. Sherman, 47 Mich. 267, 11 N. W. 153; Snover v. Squire, (N. J. Ch.) 24 Atl. 365; Siter v. McClanachan, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 280; Howell v. Mellon, 189 Pa. 169, 42 Atl. 6; In re Dull's Estate, 222 Pa. 208, 71 Atl. 9.

86. Maginn v. McDevitt, 269 111. 196, 196, N. E. 1038; Lambert v. Morgan, 110 Mo. 1, 72 Atl. 407; Chick v. Ives, (Neb.) 90 N. W. 751; Gray v. Smith, 3 Watts. (Pa.) 289. But the mortgage may be construed as an assignment of his interest in the proceeds of sale. See Wood v. Pehrsson, 21 N. Dak. 357. 130 N. W. 1010; Walker v. Killian, 62 S. C. 482, 40 S. E. 887.

Real Property.

[Sec. 119 of the land,87 nor makes him a necessary party to a partition proceeding.88

- Cases not within the doctrine. Since, in spite of not infrequent statements to the contrary, the doctrine of equitable conversion does not operate to convert into money land directed to be sold, land so directed by will is not to be regarded as personalty for the purpose of paying the testator's debts,89 nor of enabling an executor to dispose of the land as he could of personalty.90 It does not change the land into money for the purpose of fixing the rights of a person not claiming under the will, as for instance the widow of testator, electing to take against the will,91 or a child omitted from the will.92 And the land does not become personalty for the purpose of the form of action to be brought for its recovery,93 nor for the purpose of enabling the state of testator's domicile to impose a succession tax, when the land to be converted is in another state.93a

87. Bank of Ukiah v. Rice, 143 Cal. 265, 101 Am. St. Rep. 76 Pac. 1020; Brown v. Miner, 261 111. 543, 104 N. E. 150; Walling v. Scott, (Ind.) 96 N. E. 481; Ramsey v. Ramsey, 226 Pa. 249, 75 Atl. 420; Mattison v. Stone, 90 S. Car. 146, 72 S. E. 991.

88. Delafield v. Barlow, 107 N. Y. 435. 14 N. E. 498.

89. Gibbs v. Ougier, 12 Ves. 413; Taylor v. Crook, 136 Ala. 354, 96 Am. St. Rep. 26, 34 So. 905; Winants v. Terhune, 15 N. J. Eq. 185; Baptist Female University v. Borden, 132 N. Car. 476, 44 S. E. 1007.

90. Wilder v. Ranney, 95 N. Y. 7; Crowley v. Hicks, 72 Wis. 53?, 40 N. W. 151; See McElroy v. McElroy, 110 Tenn. 137, 73 &. W. 105.

91. Barnstt's Admr. v. Barnett's Admr. 1 Mete. (Ky.) 256; Pac-holder v. Rosenheim, 129 Md. 455, 99 Atl. 672; Geiger v. Bitzer, 80 Ohio St. 65. 88 N. E. 134; Hoover v. Landis, 76 Pa. 354; Cunningham's Estate, 137 Pa. 621, 21 Am. St. Rep. 901, 20 Atl. 714.

92. Northrop v. Marquam, 16 Oreg. 173, 18 Pac. 449.

9::. Shaw v. Chambers, 48 Mich. 355, 12 N. W. 486.

93a. McCurdy v. McCurdy, 197 Mass. 248, 83 N. E. 881; Connell v. Crosby, 210 111. 380, 71 N. E. 350; In re Swift, 137 N. Y. 771, 18 L. R. A. 709, 32 N. E. 1096; Contra, Dalrymple'3 Estate, 215 Pa. 367, 64 Atl. 554. The Pennsylvania view appears to be favored in an editorial note in 29 Harv. Law Rev. p. 343. The present writer veo