Though there is a trust or direction for conversion, so that the doctrine of equitable conversion would otherwise apply, the person or persons absolutely entitled to the equitable interest in the property, if sui juris, may elect to take the property in its actual state; the theory being said to be that, since such person or persons could given to an action brought to recover the land as such.26 The election against conversion must necessarily be indicated before the actual conversion directed has taken place.27

X. Car. 320; Fifield v. Van Wyck, 94 Va. 557. 64 Am. St. Rep. 745, 27 S. E. 446.

19. Cogan v. Stephens, 1 Beav. 482, note, 5 Law J. Ch. 17; Phillips v. Ferguson, 85 Va. 509, 1 L. R. A. 837. 17 Am. St. Rep. 78, 8 S. E. 241.

20. Lewin. Trusts (12th Ed.) 174. citing Curteis v. Wormald, 10 Ch. Div. 172. For an elaborate criticism of this case see article by Prof. C. C. Langdell in 18 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 16.

21. 3 Pomeroy. Eq. Jur. Sec.Sec. 1173, 1174; Ackroyd v. Smithson, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq. 1186; Griffith v. Ricketts, 7 Hare, 299; Clarke v. Franklin, 4 Kay & J. 257; Bostwick v. Frankfield, 74 N. Y. 207, 214; Douglas County Com'rs v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 5 Kan. 615.

"reconvert" the property, after an actual conversion, equity will, upon a manifestation of their desire in (his respect, consider the reconversion as effected,22 But a person entitled to a share only of money to be derived from a sale directed to be made of land cannot, without the concurrence of the other persons interested, elect to take his share in land, since this would affect disadvan-tagebusly the sale or the balance23

The question whether there has been an election in this regard is one of intention, to be determined by the acts and declarations of the party or parties entitled to elect.24 Accordingly, a conveyance, of land directed to he sold, by the persons entitled to the proceeds, has been considered to show an election against its conversion into money,25 and the same effect has been

22. 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1175: notes to Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq. 1151. 1168: Meek v. Devenish, 6 Ch. Div. 566, 6 Gray's Cas. 543; In re Cotton's Trustees. 19 Ch. Div 624; Craig v. Leslie. 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 564, 4 L. Ed. 460; Baker v. Copen-barger. 15 111. 103, 58 Am. Dec. 600; Mellen v. Mellen, 139 N. Y. 210. 220. 34 N. E. 925: Morrow v. Brenizer. 2 Rawle (Pa.) 185; Harcum's Adm'r v. Hudnall, 14 Grat. (Va.) 369.

23. Holloway v. Radcliffe, 23 Beav. 163; In re Loyd's Estate, 175 Cal. 699, 167 Pac. 157; De Vaughn v. McLeroy, 82 Ga. 687, 10 S. E. 211; Baker v. Copen-barger, 15 111. 103, 58 Am. Dec. 600; McDonald v. O'Hara, 144 N. Y. 566, 39 N. E. 642; Clifton v. Owens, 170 N. C. 607, 87 S. E. 502; Evans' Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 183; Wayne v. Fouts, 108 Tenn. 145,

65 Si W. 471; Brown v. Miller, 45 W. Va. 211, 31 S. E. 956. But it has been decided that one entitled to a share in land to be purchased under directions to a trustee may elect to take his share in money. Seeley v. Jago, 1 P. Wms. 389.

24. Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1177; Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 5G3, 4 L. Ed. 460; Lincoln v. Wakefield, 237 Pa. 97, 85 Atl. 133; Harcum's Adm'r v. Hudnall, 14 Grat. (Va.) 369.

25. Ridgeway v. Underwood, 67 111. 419; Swan v. Goodwin. 2 Duv. (Ky.) 298; Greenland v. Waddell, 116 N. Y. 234, 15 Am. St. Rep. 400, 22 N. E. 367: Nail v. Nail, 243 Mo. 247, 147 S. W. 1006. (mortgage); In re McClarren's Estate, 238 Pa. 220, 85 Atl. 1119; Williams v. Jones, 131 Wis. 361, 111 N. W. 505. See Phifer v. Giles, 159 N. C. 142, 74 S. E.