ART. 93] GUARDIAN AND WARD. 889

152.

See notes to section 151.

154.

To the first note to this section on page 2084 of volume 2 of the Anno-
tated Code, add the case of Sudler v. Sudler, 121 Md. 54.

155.

See notes to section 144.

167.

See note to section 172.

172.

The orphans' court has no jurisdiction to authorize a guardian to invest
the ward's funds in a loan to the guardian himself upon his promissory
note bearing interest. Definition of the term "investment." Fidelity &
Deposit Co. v. Freud, 115 Md. 31.

173.

See note to section 172.

178.

This section was intended to deal with the disposition of the income of
the ward's estate, and contemplates allowing the guardian to use an unex-
pended balance of the income temporarily upon paying interest; it does
not refer to investments of the corpus of the estate. Definition of the term
"investment"; distinction between an investment of funds, and their reten-
tion and use by the guardian. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Freud, 115 Md. 34.

186.

See notes to section 144.

190.

The orphans' court has no jurisdiction to authorize a guardian to invest
the ward's funds in a loan to the guardian himself upon his promissory
note bearing interest. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Freud, 115 Md. 32.

193.

See notes to sections 178 and 190.

Inventory and List of Debts.
228.

Where a testator provides in a will that all the residue of her estate,
including all debts due her, shall go to A, B & C, and A owes the testator
money, A, B and C also being named as executors; and where the execu-
tors have stated an account in the orphans' court which shows that a bal-
ance is in hand ready for distribution to the residuary legatees, the orphans'
court will not, under this section and section 243, grant issues to a court
of law to determine whether A is indebted to the testator. B and C may
sue A at law direct for their respective interests in his indebtedness to
the testator. Where a testator bequeaths to a residuary legatee a part
of his indebtedness to the testator, such indebtedness to that extent is extin-
guished. Sloan v. Sloan, 117 Md. 142.

This section referred to in holding that a case had not been set down
for hearing by the orphans' court on petition and answer. While this sec-
tion does not in terms provide for even an answer, the proper practice is