The beneficiaries may make the election either by application to the court of equity or by unequivocal acts or declarations clearly manifesting a desire to reconvert. Gerling v. Wyand, 147 Md. 117, 127 A. 486; Herman v. Hurst, 160 Md. 96, 153 A. 24; Mellen v. Mellen, 139 N.Y. 210, 34 N.E. 925, 928; Strickler v. Byrd, 171 Va. 347, 198 S.E. 918, 130 A.L.R. 1373. In this case there is no doubt that the beneficiaries elected to reconvert.
Parties entitled to the proceeds of sales of land under powers of sale are permitted to take the property instead of the money, and hold the land in its natural state. Gerling v. Wyand, 147 Md. 117, 121, 127 A. 486; 1 Tiffany, Real Property (2nd Ed.), sec. 1230; Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 1175 to 1177; Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat, 563, 4 L.Ed. 460; Prentice v Janssen, 79 N.Y. 478; Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. Leary, 203 N.Y. 469, 97 N.E. 43; In re Tatham, 250 Pa. 269, 95 A. 520. There are comparatively few cases of powers reserved to grantors themselves to make later sales for their own benefit, but the essentials of the situation are the same as those to which the equitable doctrine of reconversion is regularly applied. Upon exercise of the power the interest is entirely that of the beneficiaries, and there is no reason why they should be forced to convert their interest from land into money if they desire it in the form of land.