In the case of a direction by will for conversion, the equitable conversion dates, as a rule, from the testator's death,98 and, in the case of a conveyance or contract inter vivos, from the time of its execution and delivery,99 and these rules are not affected by the fact that the trustees are given a discretion as to the time of sale.1

Cassidy, 79 N. Y. 613, 35 Am. Rep. 550; Delafield v. Barlow, 107 N. Y. 535, 14 N. E. 498; Proctor v. Fere-bee, 1 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 143, 36 Am. Dec. 34; Fahnestock v. Fahnestock, 152 Pa. St. 56, 34 Am. St. Rep. 623, 25 Atl. 313: McCon-nell v. Bryan, 62 Pa. Super. Ct. 178; Clarke v. Clarke, 46 S. C. 230, 57 Am. St. Rep. 675, 24 S. E. 202; Ford v. Ford. 70 Wis. 19, 5 Am. St. Rep 117, 33 N. W. 188.

98. 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1162; Reiff v. Strite, 54 Md. 298; Hammond v. Putnam, 110 Mass. 232; Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 641, 35 Am. Dec. 641; Brolasky v. Gally's Ex'rs, 51 Pa. St. 509; Whe-less v. Wheless, 92 Tenn. 293, 21 S. W. 595.

99. Griffith v. Ricketts, 7 Hare, 299; Loughborough's Ex'rs, v. Loughborough, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 441; Keep v. Miller, 42 N. J. Eq. 100; Wheless v. Wheless, 92 Tenn. 293, 21 S. W. 595.

1. In re Raw, 26 Ch. Div. 601; Lambert v. Morgan, 110 Md. 1; does not, by the weight of .authority, defer the "equitable conversion," this is so only if the event is certain to occur, and if the actual conversion is not to take place until the occurrence of an event, which may not occur, no equitable conversion is recognized until it does occur.4 In such a case, as in the case of a mere power to convert,5 the beneficiary has a bare possibility.

In the case of a direction for the sale of land, a gift of the proceeds of sale is a gift of personalty and not of land irrespective of the time at which the sale is to take place. Consequently the equitable conversion, so called, properly takes place immediately upon the death of the testator by whose will the conversion is effected, although the time of the sale is by the will postponed until the occurrence of a future event, usually the death of one who is given a life estate in the land. That is, in the case of a gift of an estate in the land to A for life, with directions that the land be sold upon A's death and the proceeds distributed among A's children, each of the children has, from the time of testator's death, an interest in personalty rather than in the land. That this is so is recognized by the great majority of the cases,2 and the occasional decisions or dicta to the contrary3 would seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine of equitable conversion.

Although the fact that the actual conversion directed is not to take place until the occurrence of a future event,

Burbach v. Burbach, 217 111. 547, 75 N. E. 519; Lent v. Howard, 89 N. Y. 169; Wurts' Ex'rs, v. Page, 19 N. J. Eq. 365; Tazewell v. Smith's Adm'r, 1 Rand. (Va.) 313, 10 Am. Dec. 533.

2. Cropley v. Cooper, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 167, 22 L. Ed. 109; Allen v. Watts, 98 Ala. 384, 11 So. 646; Emery's Appeal 83 Conn. 235. 76 Atl. 529; Nelson v. Nelson, 36 Ind. App. 331, 75 N. E. 679; Burke v. Burke, 259 111. 262, 102 N. E. 293; Beaver v. Ross, 140 Iowa, 154, 118 N. W. 287, 20 L. R. A. N. S. 65, 17 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 640; Hocker v. Gentry, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 463; Miller's Ex'r. v. Sageser, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 837, 99 S. W. 13; Greeman v. McVey, 126 Minn. 21, 147 N. W.

812; Coyne v. Davis, 98 Neb. 763, 154 N. W. 547; Fairley v. Kline, 3 N. J. L. 755, 4 Am. Dec. 414; Collier v. Grimesey, 30 Ohio St. 17; Thomman's Estate 161 Pa. 444, 29 Atl. 84; In re McClarren's Estate 238 Pa. 220, 85 Atl. 1119; Effinger v. Hall, 81 Va. 94.

3. Bank of Ukiah v. Rice, 143 Cal. 265, 101 Am. St. Rep., 76 Pac. 1020; Williams v. Lobban. 206 Mo. 399, 104 S. W. 58; Vincent v. New-house, 83 N. Y. 505; Underwood v. Curtis, 127 N. Y. 523, 28 N. E. 585; Brothers v. Cartwright, 2 Jones Eq. 113, 64 Am. Dec. 563; Elliott v. Loflin, 160 N. C. 361, 76 S. E. 236, semble; DeWolf v. Lawson, 61 Wis. 469, 50 Am Rep. 148, 21 N. W. 615.