the property after the time when, under ordinary circumstances, they are entitled to its enjoyment. As will be shown in a succeeding section, the personal representative is liable for interest if he unduly delays the settlement of the estate, since the distributees of the estate must be compensated for their loss. The will of the decedent may provide that the executor shall make investments of the funds of the estate, and the executor should comply with such directions and in the manner designated in the will. When there are no testamentary provisions on the subject, the duty of the personal representative depends upon the circumstances of the case. Inherently he should not make investments except in those cases where the estate can not be settled and distributed within the ordinary time contemplated by statute, so that the funds of the estate, unless invested, would lie idle for an extended period without benefit to any interested parties. If there is a bequest of income of a certain amount of money to one for life, with remainder over, the executor is in effect a trustee and is in duty bound to properly invest the sum mentioned in order that an income may be produced for the benefit of the life tenant. The general rule may be stated to be that if the personal representative has in his hands moneys of the estate which are not required for any of the purposes of administration and which, under the circumstances of the case, can not be paid out or distributed for some period of time, it is the duty of the personal representative to invest such moneys in safe security in order that the same may be made productive, and the parties interested in the estate be compensated for the loss which they sustain by reason of being deprived of the enjoyment of the assets of the estate which ultimately will be distributed to them. If the per

sonal representative negligently allows moneys of the estate to lie idle and unproductive, he may be liable for interest, according to the circumstances, in order that the beneficiaries may be compensated.15 The personal representative in making investments under the circumstances just mentioned, is subject to the usual limitations upon all trustees, namely, he can not invest the funds in any business or proposition of a hazardous or speculative character. If the assets of the estate coming into the

hands of the personal representative are in the form of investments made by the decedent in his lifetime, the representative is not liable for any loss which occurs because of the nature of the investment.47

§ 1511. Personal Representative Depositing Funds of Estate in His Own Name Is Liable for Any Loss.

It is the duty of the personal representative to keep the funds of the estate separate and distinct from any funds belonging to himself personally. If deposited in a bank, they should be deposited by him in a separate account in his representative capacity and should be drawn upon only for the purposes connected with the administration of the estate. If the representative deposit them in his own name in a bank or other institution which thereafter fails, he is personally liable for any loss which may occur. This liability is imposed because of the manner in which he deposited the funds, and he is not excused because of good faith or prudence or the fact that he had deposited his personal funds in the same place.48 The fact that he

47 Cook v. Barnes, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1533, 43 S. W. 682; Bowker v. Pierce, 130 Mass. 262; Troup v. Rice, 55 Miss. 278; Hanbest's Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 482; Stewart's Appeal, 110 Pa. St. 410, 6 Atl. 321.

If a residuary bequest to one for life comprises assets of a perishable nature or invested in hazardous enterprises, the life tenant may demand that the assets be sold and reinvested in safe securities.-Wightwick v. Lord, 6 H. L. Cas. 217.

48 Wren v. Kirton, 11 Ves. Jun.

377; Massey v. Banner, 4 Madd. 413; Ditmar's Admr. v. Bogle's Distributees, 53 Ala. 169; Matter of Arguello's Estate, 97 Cal. 196, 31 Pac. 937; Allen v. Leach, 7 Del. Ch. 83, 29 Atl. 1050; Naltner v. Dolan, 108 Ind. 500, 58 Am. Rep. 61, 8 N. E. 289; Corya v. Corya, 119 Ind. 593, 22 N. E. 3; Officer v. Officer, 120 Iowa 389, 98 Am. St. Rep. 365, 94 N. W. 947; Commonwealth v. McAlister, 28 Pa. St. 480; Williams v. Williams, 55 Wis. 300, 42 Am. Rep. 708, 121 N. W. 465, 13 N. W. 274; Jacobus v. Jacobus, 37 N. J. Eq. 17.

informed the bank at the time of the deposit that the funds in fact belonged to him as administrator does not relieve him from liability." When a personal representative deposits a fund in such a manner as to invest himself with the apparent legal title, the beneficiaries of the fund are entitled at their election to regard the personal representative as their debtor.50 Any agent or trustee can always escape liability by depositing the fund in the name of his principal so as to indicate that the money belongs to the principal and not to himself. If he deposits it in his own name so as to constitute himself the apparent owner, he must suffer any loss which may be occasioned, and this rule applies irrespective of his good faith in the matter.51

§ 1512. Effect of Unduly Delaying Settlement of Estate: Chargeable With Interest.

It is the duty of an executor or administrator to attend to the routine matters of administration, to collect the assets, pay the debts and, as soon as the statutory time has expired for the presentation of claims, to file his final account and petition to have the estate distributed. Those entitled to the property under the will of the decedent or

The mere deposit by an executor of the funds of an estate in his own name is not a conversion. -Bischoff v. Yorkville Bank, 218 N. Y. 106, 112 N. E. 759.

49 Horner's Estate, 66 Mo. App. 531.

50 Merket v. Smith, 33 Kan. 66, 5 Pac. 394; Bartlett v. Hamilton, 46 Me. 435; School District v. First Natl. Bank, 102 Mass. 174; Utica Insurance Co. v. Lynch, 11

Paige (N. Y.) 520; McAlister v.
Commonwealth, 30 Pa. St. 536.

51 Robinson v. Ward, 2 C. & P. 60, 12 E. C. L. Rep. 28; Macdonnell v. Harding, 7 Sim. 178; State v. Greensdale, 106 Ind. 364, 55 Am. Rep. 753, 6 N. E. 926; Norris v. Hero, 22 La. Ann. 605; Jenkins v. Walter, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 218, 29 Am. Dec. 539; Mason v. Whitthorne, 2 Coldw. (42 Tenn.) 242; Williams v. Williams, 55 Wis. 300, 42 Am. Rep. 708, 12 N. W. 465, 13 N. W. 274.

entitled to succeed thereto in the event of intestacy have the right to demand that the property be turned over to them at the earliest practicable moment. A delay in receiving the property naturally results in the loss of its use and damage is occasioned thereby. It is the duty of the personal representative, as soon as possible, to turn over the estate to those entitled thereto and he can not speculate with the assets, carry on the business of the estate or improve it for the benefit of the heirs.52 An unreasonable delay in the settlement of the estate by the personal representative makes him chargeable with interest on assets retained in his possession.53 Where an executor or administrator delays the settlement of the estate and the distribution of the assets for an unreasonable length of time, during which he mingles the money of the estate with his own and employs it in his own business, he is chargeable with interest thereon, compounded annually, otherwise those entitled to the assets of the estate would not be compensated for their loss.54

§ 1513. Personal Representative Is Chargeable With Compound Interest if He Uses Funds of Estate for Personal Benefit.

If the personal representative uses the funds of the estate in his own private business, or retains them in his

52 Estate of Moore, 72 Cal. 335, 342, 13 Pac. 880; Maddock v. Russell, 109 Cal. 417, 423, 42 Pac. 139.

An executor is liable for interest on the distributive share of a distributee where he illegally withholds such share.-Leischner v. Kaiser, 156 Ill. App. 123.

53 May v. Green, 75 Ala. 162; Marshall v. Coleman, 187 Ill. 556,

58 N. E. 628, charging 10% interest under the Illinois statute; Succession of Touzanne, 36 La. Ann. 420; Smithers v. Hooper, 23 Md. 274; Anderson v. Gregg, 44 Miss. 171;

261.

Scott v. Crews, 72 Mo.

54 In re Hilliard, 83 Cal. 423, 23 Pac. 393; Estate of Piercy, 168 Cal. 755, 145 Pac. 91; Lommen v.