ART. 93] ACCOUNT. 2029

1904, art. 93, sec. 10. 1888. art. 93, sec. 10. 1860, art. 93. sec. 10. 1798. ch. 101,

sub-ch. 10, sec. 11.

10. Whenever, under the provisions of a will, it shall be neces-
sary for an executor or an administrator cum, testamento annexo to
retain in his hands the personal estate, or any part thereof, after all
just claims are discharged, as where money or some other thing is
directed to be paid at a distant period, or upon a contingency, any
court of equity in the city or county, or the orphans' court shall have
the power, on the application of such executor or administrator, or of
a party interested, to decree or give directions thereto; and it shall
be the duty of such executor or administrator to apply to the said
court of equity or the orphans' court; and the said courts, respectively,
shall have full power to decree or direct what part of the personal
estate shall be retained or appropriated for the purpose, and in what
manner it shall be, disposed of, and the legacy or benefit intended by
the will shall be secured to the person to be entitled at a future
period or contingency, and how the necessary part of the personal
estate to be appropriated for the purpose shall be prevented from
lying dead or being unproductive, and how it shall be applied, agree-
ably to the intent of the will or the construction of law, in case the
contingency shall not take place.

Where executors fall to apply to the orphans' court or a court of equity
as they ought to do under this section, either court may assume jurisdiction
upon the application of an interested party. When equity assumes Jurisdic-
tion the executor may be required to give bond although no bond was
required by the will; the directions of the will, however, should be followed
as far as that can safely be done. Where the will directs the property to
be held and invested by the executors, the court Is not ordinarily authorized
to direct them to hold as trustees. Smith v. Michael, 113 Md. 20.

This section contemplates an application by the executor to the orphans'
court. Failure of proof that the court gave directions under this section.
The court has no power by virtue of this section to relieve the executor of
duties imposed by the will. Hlndman v. State, 61 Md. 29; cf. Gunther v.
State, 31 Md. 29.

Design of this section. The mode of disposition for security is left to
the sound discretion of the court. Proper practice. Gunther v. State. 31
Md. 30.

For a full discussion of when this section applies and when it does not
apply, reviewing the Maryland cases, see Smith v. Michael, 113 Md. 14.

This section held to defeat an application to compel the statement of a
final account Rieman v. Peters, 2 Md. 110.

As to duties of an executor somewhat analagous to those prescribed in
this section, see State v. Robinson, 57 Md. 495; Evans v. Iglehart, 6 G. & J.
196; Wootten v. Burch. 2 Md. Ch. 190.

Cited but not construed in Goldsborough v. Martin, 41 Md. 505.
As to investments by guardians and administrators, see sec. 167, et seq.,
and sec. 242.

Ibid. sec. 11. 1888, art. 93, sec. 11. 1860, art 93. sec. 11.
1816, ch. 203, sec. 3.

11. The administrator of a deceased administrator, who .shall die
before an account of his administration hath been rendered, shall ren-
der an account, showing the amount of the assets received and the
payments made by bis decedent; and the account shall, if found by