atkins case hicks versus hicks November a receiver during the infancy of the  plaintiff who have no guardian be direct to place out the surplus of the rend  when the same shall amount to a competent sum on government or other security  have never place it out at interest accord to the decree the court direct that  he shall pay interest at pound per cent from the time of the decree till the  infant come of age so earl of Lonsdale v church bro Charles Rep see Adam v  gale ante atk it be move that Mr John Applegath the receiver of the rend and  profit of the estate in question may be charge with and pay to the plaintiff  interest for the surplus rend and profit during the time the same remain in  his hand and which be not place out by he at interest Mr Applegath be appoint  receiver in upon the that of February it be order by the decree in the cause  that the receiver during the infancy of the plaintiff who have no testamentary  or other guardian shall place out the surplus of such rend and profit when the  same shall amount to a competent sum with the approbation of the master on  government or other good security in the name of trustee to be approve of by  the master and that the same shall be pay to the plaintiff when of age Lord  chancellor I be of opinion that the receiver must pay interest at four per  cent for the surplus rend and profit from the time of the decree in February  till the infant come of age because where there be no testamentary guardian or  any other appoint it be the only care the court can take in such a case that  the most may be make of a infant estate during his minority there have be  several excuse make for the receiver first that the express direction of the  decree be that the receiver shall lie out the surplus rend c with the  approbation of the master in trustee name to be approve of by he and therefore  as the master give no direction he can not do it of himself but there be no  force in this argument because these word in the decree be mere of course and  the necessary business of master may be suppose to prevent they from attend to  every minute particular in a decree and it be the duty of the receiver to  remind the master to lie out the surplus rend as often as it amount to a  competent sum atkins another excuse be that there be large building and farm  upon the estate which be in a ruinous condition and very often tenant break  and that it be necessary for the receiver to keep the balance in his hand for  rebuilding and repair or for the accident of empty farm which must cost a good  deal in stocking if I shall allow this to be a ex use it will be attend with  very ill consequence for then every receiver of the rend and profit of real  estate will pretend repair be necessary but it be impossible to suppose though  tenant be very fond of building and repair that the receiver can ha this case  exhaust the money receive atkins er p a three excuse make for the receiver or  rather a defence for he be that on the d of August the infant come of age but  two day before the receiver settle account with the plaintiff deliver up his  voucher give he copy of all the account pass before the master c that the  plaintiff look they over careful admit the balance to be right and receive the  same without any objection this do not weigh with I at all for most young  gentleman be apt to pass account when they come of age without look into they  and be tempt to do it in order to get the balance from the receiver into their  own hand upon the whole it be very necessary for the sake of the practice of  the court with regard to infant that the receiver in this case from the time  of the decree in shall for his negligence in not put out the surplus rend pay  interest to the time the plaintiff come of age his lordship direct the master  to inquire what sum of money the receiver ought or may reasonable have lie out  at interest for the benefit of the estate and that for such sum the receiver  shall be charge at the rate of four per cent Reg lib a fol