case Awdley versus Awdley see Att gentleman v ailesbury Q b d App Cas lunacy  Act pound Vict c sect in court die Novem Eq can ab pl Ch Rep ks c committee of  a lunatic invest part of his personal estate in the purchase of land in fee  this shall still be take as personal estate and in case of his death shall go  to the next of kin and not to his heir mortgagor release to the heir of the  mortgagee in fee yet the executor or administrator of the mortgagee shall have  the benefit of the mortgage though there be no debt so if a mortgagee in fee  die and the mortgagor will not redeem yet the execrator or administrator of  the mortgagee shall have the benefit of the mortgage so he shall though the  mortgage be foreclose or be of so ancient a date as not to be redeemable  unless the mortgagee be in the actual possession the committee of one Awdley a  lunatic have invest part of the lunatic personal estate in a purchase of land  make in the lunatic name to he and his heir the great question in the cause be  whether the committee have not exceed their power by change the personal  estate into a teal estate and thereby defeat the next of kin in favour of the  heir at law for the defendant it be insist that the committee have act fair in  this matter have make the purchase and take the conveyance in the name of the  Vernon chancery case er p lunatic so that in case he have recover and become  of sane memory he may have insist that the land be purchase with his money and  have have the benefit of the purchase whether the trustee Vernon chancery case  will or not and cite the case of Zoach and Lloyd where the mother as guardian  to her infant son have out of his personal estate pay off a mortgage the  infant afterward die and the estate descend to a remote heir and then the  mother will have have back the money but the court deny any relief in that  case and likewise the case of Dennis and Badd I Ch can Eq can ab pl SC cite in  earl of Winchelsea v norcliffe ante Vol quod vide palmer v Danby pre Ch Hooper  v eyles post but it be answer that the trustee have bind himself by make the  purchase in the lunatic name so have no election but the lunatic may have  accept or refuse the purchase and as to the case of Zoach and Lloyd there the  guardian have do no more than what by the justice of this court she may have  be enforce to do videlicet to apply the personal estate in ease of the real by  take off the encumbrance that lie upon it and suppose in this case the lunatic  have be indebt by simple contract and have leave no personal estate shall not  this court have make these purchase land liable to that debt and where a  mortgagor release to the heir of the mortgagee in fee the mortgage be forfeit  the administrator shall have the benefit of that estate even though there be  no debt and in the case of wood and Thornebourgh versus Nosworthy where there  be a mortgage in fee forfeit and the mortgagor will not redeem yet the  administrator shall have the estate though there be no debt and so in case a  mortgagor be foreclose or that the mortgage be of so ancient a date as in the  ordinary course of the court it be not redeemable yet in case the mortgagee be  not actual in possession it shall be look upon to be personal estate vide win  v Littleton ante Vol Pockley v Pockley ibidem Vernon chancery case after great  debate and upon read the statute make touch the grant of the custody of  lunatic whereby it be provide that the surplus shall be safe keep and deliver  to he if he recover if not upon his death to be employ for the benefit of his  soul c the court decree a account of the personal estate and the land purchase  to be sell and the money to go and be divide as personal estate among the next  of kin the decree declare that it be not in the power of any committee to  alter the nature of a lunatic estate it do not appear that the decree order  the land to be sell the plaintiff be to have his share pay so far as there be  personal estate to pay and the purchase land to stand charge with the  remainder rea lib a foe vide Prodgers v Phrazier ante vol foster v merchant  ibidem note per cur the case of Howard and brown be the first case in this  court where because a man have charge himself by answer that his answer shall  be allow as a good discharge and that it ought to be the last