296 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

to this court, and is, consequently, now depending on the equity
side of Baltimore County Court.

And, the application, therefore, to this court now is, that
trustees, appointed by a decree of Baltimore County Court, to
make sale of property in a case which is still there, shall bring
into this court the proceeds of such sale to await the decree
which may be passed by the court in this cause.

It is, I think, very clear, that this cannot be done—the
case of Brown vs. Wallace, 4 Gill and Johns., 469, is directly
opposed to it. The remedy of the plaintiffs (if they have any)
would seem to be by a proceeding in the court under whose au-
thority the sale was made, and, perhaps, by a petition in the
same cause. It is very certain, however, that this court can-
not order a trustee, acting under the decree of a court of con-
current jurisdiction, to do any thing. If such an authority were
exercised by the co-ordinate equity tribunals of our state, the
utmost confusion and clashing of power would ensue.

[The Chancellor then ordered, that the "bill and the amend-
ed bill of complaint" be dismissed with costs.]

[No appeal was taken from this decree.]

SAMUEL W. THOMAS
vs.
WOOD, EX'R OF HARRISON.

WOOD, EX'R OF HARRISON, ^{SEPTEMBBR TERM}' ¹⁸⁴⁸-

TS.

SAMUEL W. THOMAS ET AL.

(CONSOLIDATED.)

[CONVERSION——FAILURE OF DEV8E TO WIDOW——MANUMISSION——ADMINISTRATION
DE BONIS NON.]

LANDS devised to be sold are turned into money, and considered, in equity, as

personal estate.
A testator devised his lands to his executors to be sold, and gave a legacy of

$2000 to his niece, to be paid her out of the proceeds of the sale of his real

estate. HELD—