CONVERSION. In Equity. The exchange of property from real to personal or from personal to real, which takes place under some circumstances in the consideration of the law, such as, to give effect to directions in a will or settlement, or to stipulations in a contract, although no such change has actually taken place. 1 Bro. C. C. 497; 1 Lead. Cas. Eq. 619 ; id. 872 ; Lawrence Elliott, 3 Redf. (N. Y.) 235; Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70, 1 N. W. 92, 50 N. W. 1103 ; Maddock v. Astbury, 32 N. J. Eq. 181.
A qualified conversion is one directed for some particular purpose ; Harker v. Reilly, 4 Del. Ch. 72. Where the purpose of conver sion fails no conversion takes place, but the property remains in its original state, but where there is a partial failure of the purpose of conversion of land the surplus re sults to the heir ; 1 Bro. C. C. 503; as mon ey and not as land, and therefore if be be dead it will pass to his personal representa tives even if theJand were sold in his life time ; 4 Madd. 492. The English authorities strongly favor the heir, and the authorities are collected by Bispham (Eq. pt. ii. ch. v.) and by Bates, Ch. (Harker v. Reilly, 4 Del, Ch. 72), who held that where there was a qualified conversion by will, if one of the legacies fail, whether it be void ab origiae or lapse, that portion of the fund which fails, of its object will result to the, party who have been entitled to thmeal estate unsold. Bispham considers the American authorities less favorable to the heir than the Englisbr citing Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 563, 4 L. Ed. 460, where it was held that if the intent of the testator appears to have been to stamp upon the proceeds of the land de scribed to be sold the character of person alty, to all intents and purposes the claim of the heir is defeated and the estate is con sidered personal (see also Morrow v. Bren izer, 2 Rawle [Pa.] 185). But in the Dela ware case cited it was considered that the English doctrine of qualified conversion was fully sustained by the American cases at large as collected in the AmericIn note to Ackroyd v. Smithson, 1 Wh. & Tud. L. Cas.
in Eq. 590; and the case cited by Bispham from 3 Wheat., as appears from the foregoing statement of it, does not conflict with the English doctrine, as it is expressly limited to cases in which the intention is clear that the heir shall not take.
Land is held to be converted into money, in equity, when the owner has contracted to sell; and if he die before: making a con veyance, his executors will be entitled to the money, and not his heirs ; 1. W. Bla. 129 ; Masterson v. Pullen; 62 Ala. 145.
When land is ordered by a will to be sold, it is regarded as converted into personalty ; Hough's Estate, 3 D. R. (Pa.) 187 ; so of a direction to sell after 20 years; Handley v. Palmer, 103 Fed. 39, 43 C. C. A. 100; but a mere power of sale Will not have that effect until it is exercised; Chew v. Nicklin, 45 Pa. 84. Lands taken under the right of eminent domain are converted.
Money may be held to be converted into land under various circumstances : as where, for example, a man dies before a conveyance is made to him of land which he has bought. 1 P. Wms. 176 ; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 563, 9 L. Ed. 522. See Giraud v. Giraud, 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 175; Orrick v. Boehm, 49 Md. 72.
Where land forming part of a decedent's estate is sold in foreclosure to pay off a debt, the sale converts the real estate into money. But the conversion is effectual only to the extent and for the purposes for which the sale was authorized, whether by will or by the order of the court. So far as these pur poses do not extend, and in so far as any of them do not take effect, in fact or in law, the property retains its former character in re spect of the rights of its owner and passes accordingly; 2 Woerner, Am. L. of Adm. § 481; Kitchens v. Jones, 87 Ark. 502, 113 S. W. 29, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 723, 128 Am. St. Rep. 36.