28 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

in his hands in the capacity of guardian, after the time limited
by law for the settlement of the estate, whether a final account
has been passed by the Orphans Court or not, upon the princi-
ple, that what the law has enjoined upon him to do, shall be
considered as done. The Chancellor is not able to perceive
the analogy between that case and the one now under consider-
ation. The law has limited a period within which an executor
or administrator shall settle the estate, and when the same per-
son is clothed with either of those offices, and is also guardian
of the parties to whom the surplus, after paying the debts of
the deceased belongs, it seems entirely proper, when the time
for the final settlement of the estate has elapsed, that he should
be regarded as holding such surplus in the character in which
his duty requires he should hold it. The transfer in such a
case from the executor or administrator to the guardian—he
being the same individual—is effected by operation of law, and
requires no act of the party himself. But the case of a trustee
appointed under a decree of this court to sell property is en-
tirely different. No time is fixed by law for the completion of
his trust. His duty, and the condition of his bond require him
to perform the trust reposed in him by the decree, or that may
be reposed in him by any future decree or order in the prem-
ises; but there is nothing in either which limits or defines the
time within which the trust reposed in him must be completed.
The Chancellor is not aware that the counsel undertook to
state at what precise period this shifting of the property from
Mr. Selby, trustee, to Mr. Selby, guardian, took place, and he
thinks it would be extremely difficult to do so. His appoint-
ment as trustee took place in August, 1837, but the money in
question was not received until 1842—five years afterwards—
nor could it have been received earlier, unless the time of pay-
ment had been anticipated, as the credit on the principal pro-
ceeds of sale did not expire until the 7th of September of that
year. Selby unquestionably received this money as trustee,
and was to account for it as such. At what period did he
cease to hold it in that character, and become responsible for it
as guardian ?-—is a question which seems to me not easily