WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND. 209

v. Philip, 1 Ves. 229; S. C. 2 Ves. 23; Belts' Supp. 120, 258; Harvey
v. Ashley, 3 Atk. 613; Rnssel v. Russel, 12 Cond. Chan. Rep. 258;
In the matter of ——, a minor, 12 Cowd. Chan. Rep. 259; Mack-
worth 's Case, 1 Vern. 461. Nor have I been able to find any case
in the English books in which the Court has undertaken to change
the nature of an infant's inheritance by selling the land itself, and
investing the proceeds of the sale for his benefit; or in which the
Court has sanctioned any such sale made by the guardian or trus-
tee of an infant.

In the management of a lunatic's estate, in England, looking to
his maintenance and the payment of his debts, if the Court sees
that his advantage would be promoted by selling a part of his real
estate, inconvenient, ill conditioned, &c. for these purposes, it
would have no difficulty in doing so without making any saving of
his rights over the property into which it had been converted; Ex
parte Phillips, 19 Yes. 123; such as is here made by our Acts of
Assembly when a sale is made of a lunatic's real estate for his
maintenance, &c. 1785, ch. 72, s. 6; 1800, ch. 67, s. 5; 1828, ch.
26, s. 3; 1829, ch. 222; 1833, ch. 150. But where, under our Acts
of Assembly, a portion of an infant's real estate is required to be
sold to save his personalty, no saving is directed to be made for
the benefit of any one. 1818, ch. 193, s, 8; Waring v. Waring, 2
Bland, 676.

In England the conversion of an infant's personal into real
estate, by the purchase of lands, has been rarely or ever prohibited
by the Court, when made with a proper saving of the infant's
rights; because of the great additional security which is thus given
to his property. Such a conversion is regarded as a permanently
safe investment of the infant's personalty; which, with due care,
may always be made without loss, and can seldom fail to be advan-
tageous to him; Doughty v. Butt, 2 P. Will. 320; Terry v. Terry,
Prec. Chan. 273; Inwood v. Tyne, 2 Eden, 148; Webb v. Shafts-
bury, 6 Mad. 100; particularly during the prevalence of those
epidemic speculation fevers, which for some seasons have been
attended with such frightful ruin in Europe; Chambers v. Cham-
bers, Fitzgib. 127; S. C. Mosely, 333; Terry v. Terry, Prec. Chan.
274; Harrison v. Hart, Comyn, 394; Rees' Cyclo. Art. John Law;
Collyer on Partnership, 618; Chalmer v. Bradley, 1 Jac. & Walk.
59; and have many times spread so much confusion and distress
over our country. Hoye v. Penn, 1 Bland, 41, note. It is declared,
however, that all changes in the nature of an infant's property
should be avoided as far as practicable; and that none should be
made without an entire saving of his rights; or whereby
*his estate might be deteriorated, or exposed to any new 193
and additional perils. Thus demonstrating, that, in England, no
Court of justice has ever presumed, for any purpose of general
advantage merely, however plausible or apparently safe, to inter-
14 3 B.