SURETIES. 2811

all the books, bonds, notes and evidences of debt, which belong to or are
due to the decedent, or which have been taken by him as executor or admin-
istrator since the death of the decedent, in his possession, and also pay over
to such new administrator all the money due by him as executor or
administrator of the decedent, the court may compel the delivery and
payment over by attachment and sequestration of property, and may also
direct the administration bond of such executor or administrator to be
put in suit.

It is imperative duty of orphans' court to require counter security if applied for,
the word " may " being construed " must." Sifford v. Morrison, 63 Md. 16; March v.
Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 Md. 310.

For effect of refusal to give counter security, see Wright v. Williams, 93 Md. 70.
This section held inapplicable where prior to expiration of six month's notice to
creditors, two of three executors state an account distributing an estate to one of
them as trustee under the will. Yakel v. Yakel, 96 Md. 245.
When sureties may proceed under this section. Brown v. Murdock, 16 Md. 531.
This section held applicable notwithstanding provisions of private act defining
powers of surety company. March v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 79 Md. 310.

For case dealing with act of 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 14, sec. 11, see Scott v. Burch,
6 H..& J. 78.
See notes to sec. 2.
Be. bonds of executors and administrators, see art. 93, secs. 39, 50, 63 and 76.

An. Code, sec. 2. 1904, sec. 2. 1888, sec. 2. 1807, ch. 136, sec. 3.

2. The several orphans' courts may call upon any executor or admin-
istrator to whom they may respectively have granted administration to
give new security approved by said courts; and if such executor or admin-
istrator shall refuse or neglect to give such new security within a fixed
reasonable time, the court may revoke his letters and appoint a new
administrator; if the executor or administrator whose letters have been
revoked shall refuse or neglect, in a reasonable time after demand, to deliver
over to such new administrator the property of his decedent in his hands
unadministered, the court may compel the same by attachment and seques-
tration, and may direct his administration bond to be put in suit.

This section does not contemplate that revocation of letters shall precede or ac-
company the giving of a new bond. It designs to provide additional security, and
to give orphans' court power exercised by courts of equity over trustees. State v.
Robinson, 57 Md. 502.

Cited but not construed in Martin v. Jones, 87 Md. 46.

See notes to sec. 1.

An. Code, sec. 3. 1904, sec. 3. 1888, sec. 3. 1807, ch. 136, sec. 2. 1829, ch. 216, sec. 4.

3. If the security or counter security of a guardian or any person
interested in the estate of such security or counter security shall conceive
himself in danger of suffering from the securityship, he may apply to the
orphans' court by which such guardian was appointed, or in which he gave
bond, and the said court may call on such guardian to give counter security;
and if the said guardian shall not, within a fixed reasonable time, give
such counter security, the court may revoke his appointment and appoint
a new guardian; and if the guardian whose appointment is revoked shall
refuse or neglect, in a reasonable time after demand, to deliver to such new
guardian the property of the ward, the said court may compel the same
by attachment, and may direct the bond of such displaced guardian to be
put in suit

See art. 93, sec. 162.