case brown versus litton Lord keeper Harcourt Mod Eq can ab pl pl captain of a  ship die leave money on board the mate become captain and improve the money he  shall on allowance make he for his care in the management of such money  account for the profit and not the interest only ex part Ormsby ba and be  freeman v Fairlie mere where a executor put out money though without the  indemnity of a decree upon a real security which there be no reason then to  suspect but afterward such security prove bad he be not Accountable for the  loss a v more than he will have be entitle to the profit have it continue good  the plaintiff testator be captain of a ship and be in his voyage beyond sea  have dollar on board the ship which he intend to invest in trade the captain  die and the defendant who be mate of the ship become captain take these dollar  and invest they in trade make great improvement thereof but on his return to  England the executrix of the first captain bring a bill against he for a  account the defendant admit the receipt of the money and offer to repay the  same with interest whereas the plaintiff insist on the profit produce in trade  and the several investment that have be make therewith object the defendant  have trade with this money it be at his risk and peril and as have it be lose  in trade peer William the defendant must have bear that loss so it be  reasonable on the other hand that the profit which have be make of it shall  belong to he as where a executor put out money without the decree of the court  if this be lose it be at his peril and therefore he ought to have the interest  but Lord keeper say that the case of a executor put out money without the  indemnity of a decree if it be on a real security and one that there be no  ground at that time to suspect have not be settle though it be his opinion  that the executor under such circumstance be not liable to answer for the loss  and so shall account for the interest but that he take the defendant in this  case to be more like a trustee than a executor and if so he ought clear to  account for the profit make of the money that the primary intent in carry  abroad this money be to invest it in trade and not to return with it home  again and therefore the defendant have observe the intent of the testator in  trade therewith and have take such a prudent care in the management of it as  it may be presume he will have take of his own money his lordship apprehend  the defendant will not have be liable to answer for any loss that may have  happen and compare it to the case of two joint trader where if one die and the  survivor carry on the trade after the death of the partner the survivor shall  answer for the gain make by this trade the court observe that this be a island  all imaginable encouragement ought to be give to trade and such construction  be for the benefit of he who carry out this money with that intent and there  be no reason that his death shall so far peer William injure his family and  relation as to deprive they of the benefit which may accrue from it in the way  of trade but that to recompense the defendant for his care in trade with it  the master shall settle a proper salary for the pain and trouble he have be at  in the management thereof a d in the mean time cost to be reserve Reg lib a  fol as to the rule at law see cross v smith east and see fellow v Mitchell  ante but a executor can lend money upon personal security Holmes v dring Cox  Wilkes v steward coop harden v parson Eden Vigrass v Binfield mad walker v  Symonds swan rider v Bickerton ib n adye v Feuilleteau ib n S c I Cox it be  now settle that a executor who use his testator money though he be answerable  for the loss if any shall account for the profit he make or for the interest  peer William er p of the money at the option of the legatee piety v Stace Ves  pocock v Reddington Ves rock v heart Ves Heathcote v Hulme I and W and see  Treves v townsend Cox bro c c S c Raphael v boehm Ves Ves Tebbs v carpenter  mad contra Hammond v Douglas Ves far v pierce mad unless carry on with the  partnership stock Crawshay v Collins Ves and see Featherston haugh v Fenwick  Ves cruttwell v lie ib Harrison v gardener mad