call  in  money  on  personal  security  as  soon  as  it  can  be  done  with-
out loss  to  the  estate.*  Where  the  will  directs  a  particular  form
of  investment,  or  leaves  the  conversion  of  particular  assets  to  the
discretion  of  the  executors,  they  are  not  liable  to  legatees  for  a
loss  caused  by  following  its  direction  in  good  faith  and  with
ordinary  prudence.*     When  executors  or  trustees  are  bound  by

perhaps  liable  to  a  suit  for  devastavit^  can  made  by  the  decedent.    Parker  v.  Glover

nevertheless  give  a  title  free  of  claims  by  (N.  J.),  9  Atl.  Rep.  217 ;   Pope  v.  Mathews,

'the  distributees.   Richardson  z/.  McLemore,  18  S.  Car.  444.      But  compare  Lacey  r.
do  .Vfiss.  315.  Davis,  4  Redf.  (N.  Y.)  402;  Williamson's

1.  Wras     Exrs.    (7th   Eng.   ed.)    1815;  Estate,  13  Phila.  (Pa.)  195;  Wilson's  Ap-

Powell  V.  Evans,  5  Yes.  (Eng.)  832;  Movie  peal    (Pa,),    9  Atl.   Rep.  473;    Lacey  r.
V.  Movie,  2  Russ  &  My.  (Eng.)  710;  John-  Stamper,  27  Gratt.  (Ya.)  42.
son  V.  Newton,  11    Hare  (Eng.),  16S,   169;  Even  in  States  in  which  there  is  no  im-

Bullock  V.  Wheatley,  i   Coil.  (Eng.)  130;  propriety  in  allowing  tbc  assets  to  remain

Lacey  v.   Stamper,   27    Gratt.   (Va.)    42;  upon  good  personal  security,  it  is  the  duty

Lacey  7A  Davis,  4  Redf.  (N.  Y.)  402;  Wil-  of  the  personal  representative  to  convert

son's  Appeal  (Pa.),  9  Atl.  Rep.  473;   Bo-  the  fund  if  there  is  danger  of  loss  or depre-

sios*  Estate,  2  Ash.  (Pa.)  437.  ciation.     Brazier  v.  Clark,  5  Pick.  (Mass)

As  to  allowing  money  to  remain  on  un-  96.     See  Boyd  v.  Boyd,  3  Gratt.  (Ya.)  113.
