210 WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND.

fere with the right of property of an infant, or indeed of any one.
And it also appears, that in those cases where the Parliament
in the plenitude of its sovereign power has directed any such
alteration of property to be made, it has most usually done so
with a saving of the rights of its infant owner. Anandale v. Anan-
dale, 2 Ves. 383; Oxenden v. Compton, 4 Bro. C. C. 235, note; Oxen-
den v. Compton, 2 Ves. Jun. 77.

In England there are many modes of investing money, other
than by the purchase of real estate, so as to preserve it in perfect
safety, and jet keep it constantly productive. In this country it
is not so. There are here comparatively few, or, perhaps, no such
perfectly safe and productive forms of investing money, other than
by the purchase of land, or upon the mortgage of real estate, as in
England; and therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of
our country, the conversion of an infant's personal estate into
realty, by way of a permanently safe investment, is much more
obviously justifiable or even commendable here than in England.
Ringgold's Case, 1 Bland, 26.

On the other hand, apart from those kinds of conversion of the
realty into personalty, by the sale of timber, coal, &c. it is, upon
the same consideration, evident, that, in this country, no invest-
ment can be any thing like so safe as in land to which theie is
a clear title; and that the conversion of a clear fee simple estate
in land can never be made with any prospect of placing the fund
in the same degree of absolute security, or without incurring .some
expense and loss, such as costs and commissions; and can rarely
be so completed as to result in any general and permanent advan-
tage to the infant. Consequently, there being no shadow of author-
ity to be found in the English books, it would be difficult here to
find any tenable ground upon which a Court of justice could sus-
tain itself in making a conversion of an infant's real estate into
personalty, or in so dealing with it, upon the pretext of its being
for his advantage as to diminish its value, or to subject it to any
new and additional perils. Doughty v. Bull, 2 P. Will. 320; Part-
ridge v. Dorsey, 3 H. & J. 307, note, 322.

In mortgage cases it is, however, said, that the Court will order
an infant's real estate, that is. regarding his equity of redemption
as such, to be sold for his peculiar benefit and advantage. But
the advantage of a sale of the realty, in such cases, is most mani-
fest; for if, instead of ordering a sale, the Court were to pass a
decree of foreclosure, the whole estate would be lost to the infant;
whereas, if it should be worth more than the mortgage debt, by
a sale, the surplus would thus be saved, and returned to him.
Hence it is obvious, that in all such cases the infant, by a sale,
may gain but cannot lose; and therefore the sale, or conversion of
such real estate into personalty for the payment of the debt must
be advantageous to him. Goodier v. Ashtow, 18 Ves. 83; Mondey