
    W. K. McClendon et als. v. Samuel Harlan et als.
    
    Guardian Bond. Covers landfimd converted, before its execution. Tlie sureties of a general guardian are liable on- the ordinary bond for money, proceeds of real estate converted by decree before the execution of the bond.
    FROM WILSON-.
    Appeal from the decree of J. P. Steele, Ch., sitting at Lebanon.
    The real estate of "Wm. F. Jones was sold by decree of the Circuit Court of Wilson, on the 26th day of October, 1849, upon a credit of one and two years, and produced a fund from which complainants, the wards, were entitled to receive §491.30, in addition to $104, proceeds of personalty.
    At the February Term, 1850, of the County Court, defendant, J. H. Barclay, the father of complainants, was appointed guardian, and gave bond, with the other defendants as his sureties, in a penalty of |1,200.
    The proceeds of the land were paid to the guardian, under two decrees of the Circuit Court; the first reciting that the guardian had given bond to the County Court in a sum sufficient to cover the amount produced by the sale of the land, and ordering the amount then collected to be paid over. The second instalment being collected, the Court ordered that it be paid over, when the bond was increased sufficiently to cover the amount. But the Clerk finding it already sufficient, paid it over without further bond. This bill was filed for an account of the guardian’s receipts, and to recover the fund from the guardian and her securities.
    Bobert Cantrell,. for- complainants,
    insisted that the bond was in double the amount of the whole fund, and was/-made to cover this very fund, and that it was paid over on this bond. He commented on the case of Baker Andrews’ heirs, 3 Hum., 592, and. insisted that it did not control this casé, as it did not involve the construction of the Act of 1823, c. 2, C. & N., 371; that the act of 1852, c. 166, did not apply, as it was passed after the money was received. He cited the Acts of 1823, c. 2; 1842, c. 117, s. 3; 1762, c. 5, s. 5; 1825, c. 45, secs. 1, 2 and 3.
    "WilliamsoN & Martin, for defendants,
    cited the case of Balter Andrews’ heirs, 3 Hum., 592; Beeves v. Steele, 2 Head, 647; Hancock v. Hubbard, 19 Pick, 171; •Act of 1852, c. 166, s. 4; Code, 3317, as a legislative construction of the previous acts, and insisted that- a general guardian’s ordinary bond would only embrace the estate devised from the personal representative.
    
      
       On the liability of securities of executors on their bond, see Lester v. Vkh, post —.
    
   Turkey, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The decree of the Chancellor must be reversed.

The only question presented for our consideration is: Are the securities upon a general guardian bond liable for a fund derived from the sale of real estate under a decree of the Chancery Court, and paid into the hands of the guardian, the sale having been made and notes taken for the purchase money, before the appointment of the guardian, and of course before the execution of the guardian bond?

The sale was a conversion of the realty into personalty; and the securities are liable to the extent of their bond.

This opinion is not in conflict with the rule that the securities of a general guardian are not bound for the funds paid to him, which have been created by the sale of real estate by order or decree of the Chancery Court, for the purpose of division amongst the minor heirs. This rule contemplates the sale of realty after the appointment of the guardian and the execution of his bond; in which case, befoi'e the guardian is enabled to receive the fund, he must execute a special bond.

The Chancellor held the contrary; his decree is reversed, and the cause is remanded for an account.  