TESTAMENTARY LAW. 2957

Where court declines to direct executor to invest, executor is not liable for interest
unless he used money or made interest out of it. Ex parte Walsh, 26 Md. 498.

This section referred to in deciding that executrix was not liable in equity for the
loss of money through investment in gas stock. McCoy v. Horwitz, 62 Md. 190.
See also Gray v. Lynch, 8 Gill, 421.

As to investments under order of court, see also sec. 10.

Generally.

The discretion vested in orphans' court is a sound legal one, and not to be arbi-
trarily exercised. Notice of order to bring money into court should always be given.
Porter v. Timanus, 12 Md. 292. And see Ex parte Shipley, 4 Md. 496; Wampler v.
Wolfinger, 13 Md. 347.

No appeal lies from action of court in removing administrator under this section.
This section distinguished from, secs. 246 and 255. (See also art. 5, sec. 64.) Macgill
v. McEvoy, 85 Md. 290; Forney v. Shriner, 60 Md. 421; Bowie v. Ghiselin, 30 Md.
558; Porter v. Timanus, 12 Md. 292; Falconer v. Kegelier, 6 Md. 552; Ex parte
Shipley, 4 Md. 496; Owen v. Pye, 115 Md. 407.

Where orphans' court has authority under this section to remove an administrator,
presumption is that court properly exercised its power. The pendency of an appeal
and of proceedings in equity held to be no excuse for failure to deposit funds as
directed by court. Jones v. Jones, 41 Md. 359.

Under this section and sec. 193, orphans' court may validly discharge a guardian
after she has fully accounted for estate and delivered it up as directed by court and
required by her bond. Thus the duty and responsibility of the guardian may be
terminated, and surety on her bond exonerated. Secs. 193, et seq., contemplate that
the retirement of a guardian will be followed by a new appointment; purpose of
these sections and duty of orphans' court thereunder. Griffith v. Parks, 32 Md. 1,
distinguished. Fidelity & Deposit Company v. Husted, 128 Md. 277.

An exclusive discretion is committed to orphans' court by this section. The power
to remove an executor or administrator for failure to render accounts is not conferred
by this section, but by sec. 3 of this article. See notes to secs. 3 and 255. Stake v.
Stake, 138 Md. 54...

This section referred to in holding that an executor would not under the cir-
cumstances be removed for failing to render an account in time—see notes to sec. 3.
Belt v. Hilgeman, Brundige Co., 138 Md. 134.

Purpose of this section. While guardian and his bond are not responsible for money
deposited under order of court, neither is released from their general responsibility
by such order. This section does not contemplate ward's money remaining in bank
unproductive. Griffith v. Parks, 32 Md. 7; O'Hara v. Shepherd, 3 Md. Ch. 306.

Where administrator or guardian deposits money without an order of court and
loss ensues, he is responsible therefor. Purpose of this section. Bacon v. Howard,
20 Md. 194; Carlysle v. Carlysle, 10 Md. 446.

An order that money be brought into court to be paid a creditor is not in con-
formity with this section. Bowie v. Ghiselin, 30 Md. 558.

This section referred to in deciding that situs of personal property remains in
county where guardian is appointed, although both guardian and ward may be
non-residents. B.aldwin v. State, 89 Md. 601; Baldwin v. Washington County, 85
Md. 159.

This section referred to in deciding that where a will leaves property to an infant
provided he lives to attain his majority, fund may be turned over to a guardian
(though the better practice is otherwise), to be paid infant in case he so survives;
otherwise, to parties entitled. Gunther v. State, 31 Md. 31.

For case denying jurisdiction of equity because complainant had ample remedy
under act of 1831, ch. 315, see Lee v. Price, 12 Md. 256.

An. Code, sec. 243. 1904, sec. 242. 1888, sec. 238. 1831, ch. 315, sec. 12.
252. If an administrator shall believe that any person conceals any
part of his decedent's estate he may file a petition in the orphans' court
of the county in which he obtained administration, alleging such conceal-
ment, and the court shall compel an answer thereto on oath; and if satis-
fied upon an examination of the whole case that the party charged has con-
cealed any part of the personal estate of the deceased, may order the de-