D. B. WOOD AND OTHERS against SAMUEL REEVES, Ex'r OF WILLIAM S. MACAY.
Where a female infant’s land was sold under a deoreo in Equity, for the benefit of the infant, and she married and died in 1850, before coming of age, leaving a child, who died in 1851, in infancy, its falhet surviving, it was Held that the money retained the character of real property, and that the heirs-at-law, of the last mentioned infant, had an equity to follow the fund and recover it from the executor of its father, into whose hands it had' come, as administrator of his wife.
(Bateman v. Latham, 3 Jones’ Eq. 35, cited and approved.)
Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Rowan.-
The plaintiffs in this suit) are heirs-at-law of — — Macay, an *272infant child of William S. and Margaret I. Macay, who died before it was named. Isabella, the mother of Margaret Macaj, and grand-mother of the said infant, was the- wife of Richard Lowery. She died seized of a tract of land in the-county of Rowan, and, at her death, it descended to her daughter, Margaret I., then under age.. At September Term* 1838, of Rowan county court, Richard Lowery filed a petition-for the sale of this land, in bis own- name, as tenant by the-courtesy, and as the guardian of his daughter Margaret, and' obtained a decree for the same. Upon the- sale of the land.,, the purchase-money, $756.66, was paid by the clerk and master to Richard Lowery, wdio executed a bond for the payment of the money to his daughter, Margaret, when his life interest therein ^ should terminate. -Lowery kept tins money until his- death, which occurred in 1S5L In the mean time, Margaret I., his daughter, had intermarried with William S. Ma-cay, the defendant Reeves’ testator, and died under-twenty-one. Her child, the said infant, suivived her but a short time. After the death of Richard Lowery, the-administrator of Mrs. Macay, brought suit u-pon the bond, against the administrator of Lowery, and recovered the money, and paid it to William S. Macay, who retained the-same until his-death, in 1856. This suit is brought by the heirs-at-law of the said infant, against the executor of William S. Macay, to-recover this money.
The defendant demurred, and the cause was removed to.this Court by consent.
Fleming, for the plaintiff.
Boyden, for the defendant.
Battle, J.
The case of Bateman v. Latham, 3 Jones’ Eq. 35, is a direct authority in favor of the claim of the plaintiffs. The fund received by the defendant’s testator, thongh retaining the character of real estate so far as its devolution and transfer are concerned, nevertheless, went into his bands in the form of money, and as such passed into the hands of the *273defendant as bis executor. The right of the plaintiffs to follow the fund, necessarily requires that they should be allowed to recover it from him or them, who at the time, may have it in possession, and in the present case, that is the executor,, and not the heirs-at-law of 'William S. Macay.
Per Curiam, Demurrer overruled.