'■>  Thornton  v.  Hawley,  10  Ves.  129;  Grieveson  v.  Kirsopp,  2
Kee.  653 ;  Davies  v.  Goodhew,  6  Sim.  585 ;  Burrell  v.  Basker-
fleld,  11  Beav.  525.  [Page  v.  Page,  10  N.  J.  (Eq.)  365;  Dodge
V.  Williams,  46  Wis.  70].
3  Ward  V.  Arch,  15  Sim.  389.
<  Beauclerk  v.  Mead,  2  Atk.  167.  [Fisher  v.  Banta,  66  If.
Y.  468;  Jones  v.  Caldwell,  97  Pa.  St.  42].
172  THE   EXCLUSIVE   JURISDICTION.
conveSiioi  Takes  ^^  regards  the  time  from  which,  in  the  absence
gw^Ia  V *^clctt7  of  special  circumstances,  conversion  takes  place  in
the  case  of  a  deed,  some  observations  of  the  court,
in  Griffiths  v.  Ricketts,^  are  important.  There  a
settlor  conveyed  the  equity  of  redemption  of  real
estate  to  trustees  for  sale  for  the  benefit  of  his
creditors,  and  on  trust,  if  there  should  be  any  sur-
plus, to  pay  the  same  to  him,  his  executors,  admin-
istrators, &c.,  to  and  for  his  and  their  own  absolute
use  and  benefit.  Held,  that  this  was  a  conversion
of  the  real  estate  into  personalty,  as  between  the
real  and  personal  representatives  of  the  settlor,  on
the  following  reasoning: — "A  deed  differs  from  a
"will  in  this  material  respect ;  the  will  speaks  from
"the  death,  the  deed  from  delivery.  If  then,  the
"author  of  the  deed  impresses  upon  his  real  estate
"the  character  of  personalty,  that,  as  between  his
"real  and  personal  representatives,  makes  it  per-
"sonal  and  not  real  estate  from  the  delivery  of  the
"deed,  and  consequently  at  the  time  of  his  death.
