IN RE CORSE. 317 �yards. The only power given is to invest part o£ the income of the real estate in its [improvement. He cannot, therefore, as a trustee, justify the disposition that he made of any part of the Personal property, and if he held it as trustee he is now liable for its value, with interest, on that ground. The ■wife has the right certainly, to treat the transfer of the real estate to him as a purchase, which it purported to be on its face, and to charge him with the receipt of the agreed price, $10,000, as part of her legacy. The executors had power to sell and couvert the real estate into personalty. In the exercise of that power they conveyed it to him for $10,000. He retained the price as the money of his wife, part of "Ûie legacy coming to her on her majority, and which the executors agreed with her to pay to him in advance of that event on being indemnified by bond, and on her promise to release them when she came of age. �I do not see how the husband could object to this being treated as a payment to him as $10,000 in money on her account. In the release which she gave to the executors it is recited that the executors did deliver to her her share of the estate "i« cash and in secunties thereof." And in the release given by the bankrupt to them at the same time he recites that he received from tbem, in right of his wife, "the cash, property, and securities to which she became entitled." Thus ail parties seem to have treated the transfer of the real estate as a sale. He took the title in fee in himself, and improved and used it in his own business. As against her claim to account for the price which belonged to the estate he would be estopped to claim that he held it on a trust that h e did not acknowl- edge, and to make that trust a defence to her claim. �I do not see in the evidence any proof that the wife has ever waived her right to treat it as a purchase by him. AU his subsequent acts show that he treated the land as his own. Her joining in the mortgages, or her knowledge of his use of her money in improving his real estate, cannot affect her claim to reimbursement. The investments were his own, and made upon his own responsibility and in his own business. It is not proved that they were made at her request, or that she ����
