His Honor’s exclusion of Gordon H. Cilley as the representative of his wife from participation in the property acquired by Alda and Adelaide Cilley under the will of A. A. Shuford conforms to the opinion of this Court, as expressed in.the former appeal; but we think his Honor erred in holding as a conclusion of law that the court, in the absence of a guardian duly appointed in this State, had no power to remove the personal property of the nonresident devisees to the place of their residence. Alda and Adelaide Cilley reside in Pennsylvania, and there Alfred G. Clay was duly appointed as their general guardian. His Honor finds from the record that the plaintiffs have complied with the statute in filing a certified copy of the appointment of the guardian in Pennsylvania, and that the bond filed by him is sufficient both as to the amount and as to the financial ability of the sureties to protect the estate of his wards. His Honor also says that he would order the transfer of the fund to the foreign guardian if he had the legal right to make such order.
The statute provides that where any ward . . . residing in another state ... is entitled to any personal estate in this State, . . . whether the same be in the hands of any guardian residing in this State, or any executor, administrator, or other person holding for the ward, or if the same ... be not in the lawful possession or control of any person, the guardian . . . duly appointed at the place where such ward . . . resides may apply to have the estate removed to the residence of the ward ... by petition filed before the clerk, and that the application shall be proceeded with as in case of other special proceedings. Any person may be made defendant to the proceeding who may be made a defendant in a civil action; but there is no absolute requirement that a resident guardian be appointed to defend in such proceedings. C. S., 2195, 2196.
Furthermore, we think his Honor erroneously concluded that the court had no power to order a sale of the real estate of the wards, inasmuch as they had no guardian resident in this State. O. S., 2180, is applicable to a proceeding instituted by a guardian for the conversion of property when the interest of the ward will be promoted thereby, and the proceeds are intended to be used for a special purpose; but since by virtue *531of tbe statute tbe appointment of a resident guardian is not necessary for tbe transfer of a ward’s funds to a nonresident guardian, and since tbe plaintiffs are represented by tbeir next friend, there appears to be no valid reason wby tbis proceeding should not be maintained to ratify tbe agreement of distribution, to remove tbe wards’ personal property, and incidentally to convert tbe wards’ real estate into personal property in order to effect such removal.
Our conclusion is that tbe proceeding can be maintained and accordingly that bis Honor’s judgment of dismissal should be
Eeversed.