case Ratcliff versus grave all novembris in court Lord keeper Eq can ab pl S c  Chan can a surety not Chargeable in equity further than he can be by law  Walter Ratcliff plaintiff father have make his will and plaintiff and his  brother John executor and residuary legatee and they be infant at their father  death administration with the will annex during their minority be grant to  Elizabeth Ratcliff their mother and the prerogative court upon grant the say  ad Vernon chancery case er p ministration take the usual bind from the  administratrix in which the two defendant the heathers be bind as her surety  Vernon chancery case the plaintiff brother be dead and have make his will and  plaintiff executor he now bring his bill for a account of the testator  personal estate and as to the defendant the surety it be suggest that by fraud  and covin they have get up their say bind and have procure insufficient  security to be accept by the prerogative court in the room thereof but the  Lord keeper upon the first open of the matter declare he will not charge the  surety further than they be answerable at law and dismiss the bill as to that  part but where bind sign and seal by a as surety but the name by mistake not  insert and a on fresh security be demand agree but afterward find the mistake  refuse equity will compel he Crosby v Middleton hill pre Ch so where bind be  extinguish at law this court will under circumstance set it up against the  surety skip v Huey atk Rep another part of the case be that the say  administratrix have have the intestate estate long in her hand and employ the  same in trade and receive interest for some part thereof it be pray that she  may answer interest for it the Lord keeper be clear of opinion that she ought  to answer interest for it for he think it reasonable that executor in all case  shall answer interest if they have use the money in trade or receive any  interest for it and not turn the same to their own private advantage the only  objection against it be that if the money shall miscarry or be lose the  executor must stand to the loss of it but now every one know a man m a insure  his money for one per cent and therefore decree the administratrix shall  account for interest unless she make oath that the have keep the money by her  t distinction be former take between a solvent and insolvent executor or  trustee at the time of lie out the money if the former make any advantage of  the trust money lie it out in a speculation he be to have it for himself on  the ground that he run a risk of loss if the latter make any advantage then  the beneficiary and trust shall have it as by reason of the insolvency of the  executor or trustee at the time he the trustee be unable to risk any loss  Bromfleld v Wytherby pre Chan but this case be deny in corsellis v lake that  July and quite the contrary doctrine to this be now hold for it be the  principle of the court that if in any case executor or trustee make any  advantage of the trust money the beneficiary and trust shall have it and if  they incur any loss by undue management or wilful neglect they must answer for  it to beneficiary and trust Lowson v Copeland bro Ch Rep Powell v Evans Ves  hill v Simpson Ves Heathcote v Hulme I W and case there cite so executor  charge with interest on balance in their hand Longmore v broom Ves as to  distinction between executor and trustee vide Mr Cox note to fellow v Mitchell  and Owen p wms Churchill v Hobson p wms Westley v clarke Eden and case there  collect although it be urge that the constant practice of the court have be  otherwise for twenty year pass and more and that there be above forty  precedent in the case and the case of haselwood and Baldwin and gardener and  Cartwright be cite in which last case it be full in proof that the executor  have receive interest and therefore it be decree that he shall account for  such interest as he have receive but this decree be afterward reverse upon a  appeal t distinction be former take between a solvent and insolvent executor  or trustee at the time of lie out the money if the former make any advantage  of the trust money lie it out in a speculation he be to have it for himself on  the ground that he run a risk of loss if the latter make any advantage then  the beneficiary and trust shall have it as by reason of the insolvency of the  executor or trustee at the time he the trustee be unable to risk any loss  Bromfleld v Wytherby pre Chan but this case be deny in corsellis v lake that  July and quite the contrary doctrine to this be now hold for it be the  principle of the court that if in any case executor or trustee make any  advantage of the trust money the beneficiary and trust shall have it and if  they incur any loss by undue management or wilful neglect they must answer for  it to beneficiary and trust Lowson v Copeland bro Ch Rep Powell v Evans Ves  hill v Simpson Ves Heathcote v Hulme I W and case there cite so executor  charge with interest on balance in their hand Longmore v broom Ves as to  distinction between executor and trustee vide Mr Cox note to fellow v Mitchell  and Owen p wms Churchill v Hobson p wms Westley v clarke Eden and case there  collect to the house of lord say vide the report of this case of gardener and  Cartwright Ch can nom Grosvenor v Cartwright by which it appear that interest  be not decree and that decree be affirm in the lord Ch can but notwithstanding  these precedent it be decree prout say vide the report of this case of  gardener and Cartwright Ch can nom Grosvenor v Cartwright by which it appear  that interest be not decree and that decree be affirm in the lord Ch can above  the principle upon which this doctrine be find be recognize in ekins v east  India company p wms Treves v Townshend Br Ch Rep and the doctrine itself be  now establish by a great number of case Newton v Bennett bro Ch Rep Perkins v  Bainton ibidem interest at the rate of per cent but court will order trustee  to pay interest at pound per cent though testator have keep it in his hand at  pound on circumstance Forbes v rose bro Ch Rep foster v foster ibidem  Littlehales v Gascoigne bro Ch Rep franklin v Firth ibidem in bankruptcy of  Hilliard Ves jun young v comb Ves so executor shall be answerable for any gain  obtain by keep the money in his hand piety v Stace Ves et vide palmer v Jones  ante p and case cite in not there Heathcote v Hulme ub sup Vernon chancery  case er p