case inwood against twine infant entitle in remainder under a reference to the  master and order of court purchase her mother jointure and have attain  twentyone receive one year rend and die hold the purchase be to be consider  real estate though make during infancy lib Reg a foe S c Eden in chancery d  and d June colonel inwood on his marriage in enter into article to settle his  estate on himself for life with remainder as to particular farm to plaintiff  for her jointure with remainder to the issue of the marriage with remainder to  his own right heir the article be never carry into execution by a settlement  but be die in leave the plaintiff his widow and Carolina Isabel his only child  a infant ambler upon his death the plaintiff enter on the jointure land and  afterward be in debt and propose to sell her jointure in convey to trustee and  their heir to sell upon petition of the infant and her uncle it be refer to  the master to see whether it will be for the benefit of the infant to purchase  the jointure at pound the master report in favour of the purchase and on the  that of April the trustee in consideration of pound convey the jointure  interest to bridge and his heir and he declare the trust for the benefit of  the infant general without add any word of limitation the daughter attain her  age of twentyone on the that march and die d march after she come at age she  give a letter of attorney to Mr Collett to receive the rend and profit of the  estate bill by plaintiff as administratrix to her daughter to have a account  of the rend and profit of the jointure estate Q whether the trust subsist for  the benefit of the personal estate of the infant or be merge in the  inheritance on the part of the plaintiff it be argue that trustee or guardian  can change the nature of the infant estate that the court can do it or which  be the same thing never do that this interest be purchase with the money of  the infant be personal estate till she come at age and continue so to her  death unless she have do something to make it real that she have not do any  thing to change the nature of it the only act be receive the rend which she  will have do in the same way whether it be personal or real on the other side  a be say that in some case where it be for the conveniency of the infant his  guardian or trustee may change the nature of his estate and that it be no  where lie down that they can in any case that the court may do it appear from  the case of earl of Winchelsea ambler v norcliffe vern that if the infant have  die under age it will not have go to her administrator that she confirm the  purchase as real estate after her come at age by receive the rend on the that  June Lord chancellor be proceed to give his opinion when Mr Wilbraham of  counsel for the plaintiff desire to speak to the question again and accord the  cause be put off to that July when Lord chancellor after hear Mr Wilbraham a  second time give his opinion the question be whether the jointure estate shall  go to the real or personal representative it be say that the nature of a  infant estate can be change that be a matter of consequence and if there be  any such rule lie down by the court I will acquiesce in it but in my opinion  it be otherwise the court have often change it for the convenience of the  infant guardian and trustee may change the nature of infant estate under  particular circumstance and the court will support their conduct if the court  will do it under the same circumstance they can do it wanton but where it be  manifest for the convenience of the infant the court keep a strict hand over  they to prevent partiality but it be too hard to say that the court will not  permit trustee or guardian to do it in any case where it be manifest for the  advantage or convenience of the infant the court have do it in many case in  make composition and often contrary to the direction of the donor or testator  as where money be direct to be lie out ambler er p in freehold land the court  have for conveniency order part to be lie out in leasehold the court have no  more right to change the nature of the infant estate than trustee or guardian  have if the court can do it in any case the present be the most reasonable for  the purpose the family think it convenient to purchase and add to the real  estate of the infant or rather to annihilate this jointure interest ambler it  be very advantageous to her and her estate of inheritance it will not have be  reasonable to consider it as personal if she have marry and leave child the  old son will have be keep out of the possession of the estate till this  interest be determine in the case of a noble and great family it will be of  consequence as the heir support the dignity and honour of the family every  body seem to have see the affair in this light in witer v witer p wms neither  the infant nor his friend desire to change the nature of his estate the infant  be seize of a pure estate in fee and then the assignment of the equitable  interest which be purchase can only operate as a extinguishment as soon as  bridge have declare the trust he have nothing in he he be not amenable to this  court the court can not make any decree against he Lord Winchelsea v norcliffe  vern Eq can Abr pl be in point to show the sense of the court of their power  it be there say the court may do it by decree it be here do by a order that  make no difference it be there say that trustee can do it at their will and  pleasure I subscribe to that opinion that they can do it wanton but the court  will support there where it be manifest for the benefit of the infant it be  the intention of the family in this case to purchase for the benefit of the  realty this be my opinion if the infant have die under twentyone after she be  at age she come to the possession of a pure fee and give a letter of attorney  to receive the rend which be a strong circumstance in favour of the realty I  can say because the original act take its rise in infancy that it be to be  consider in eoden modus after she come at age bill dismiss in general a  trustee or guardian shall not change the nature of a infant property but it be  establish that where a person be act good fide for a infant without any  intention to prefer either representative there be no equity between they but  the thing must stand as it be and they must take the property as they find it  ware v Polhill Ves ex part Bromfield Ves S c bro see Vernon v Vernon cite ib  Flannagan v Flannagan cite Ves city v Parker ib oxendon v Lord Compton Ves  Pearson v shaw atk terry v terry pale yellow Eq Rep gee Milnes v Harewood Ves  neither will the court change the property of a infant from personal to real  without a express proviso that if he shall not attain the age of year its  nature shall not be alter serjison v Sealy atk ware v Polhill Ves book v worth  Ves Ashburton v Ashburton Ves web v Lord Shaftsbury mad and the rule be the  same on a charge from real to personal see Tullit v Tullit dick S c ante and  it seem that the effect will be the same although there be no such express  proviso Ves the reason why a infant personal estate turn into real be still  consider as personal be on account of the different age at which the infant  may dispose of his personal and real estate and not out of favour to either  representative Peirson v shaw atk ex part Phillips Ves Witter v Witter p W for  the case of conversion of lunatic property by committee see ex part Grimston  post and note there