GIBSON'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 137

the mercantile sense of that term. A trustee of this Court is a
person of legal constitution, with legal duties; and though some
of his duties may have a mercantile mixture m them, he does not
transact them as a merchant. He acts altogether as a legal officer,
and must be paid, as such, in proportion to his diligence, skill,
trouble and risk; not exactly according to the value of the subject
in litigation. The Rendsberg, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 164; Wood v.
Freeman, 2 Atk. 542. And therefore the term commission, in the
mercantile sense, cannot be applied to the compensation of a trus-
tee, or any other officer of this Court. But it has been found, in
many cases, to be highly expedient, if not absolutely necessary,
to have the property sold by an auctioneer; and it is obviously for
the benefit of those concerned, that all sales should be so con-
ducted; The Rendsberg, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 108; although no lee is
allowed to a sheriff for so making a sale. The King v. Cracken-
thorp, 2 Anstr. 412. Therefore it has been deemed proper to per-
mit the trustee to employ an auctioneer, to whom may be allowed
a fee, not exceeding five dollars, for each separate and unconnected
sale.

Considering the nature of the office of a trustee, it follows, that
as on the one hand, his compensation may, because of the discharge
of his duties being attended with a very unusual degree of labor
and risk, be increased; so, on the other hand, his compensation,
because of his duties having been improperly or but partially per-
tially performed, may be altogether withheld, or proportionably
diminished. As where it appeared, that the trustee had been
under the necessity of making several journeys or voyages, or had
already, and should thereafter incur much extraordinary trouble
for the purpose of executing the decree, he was allowed a compen-
sation, in addition to the commission specified by the rule. The
Rendsberg, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 163; Hindman v. Clayton, MS. 8th
March, 1805. (f) On the other hand, where the trustee, after having

(f} MILLAR v. BAKER.—This was a creditors' bill, filed on the 12th of Feb-
ruary, 1796, to have the real estate of the late Christian Baker, lying in
Frederick County, sold to pay his debts, &c. On the 2d of June, 1796, it
was decreed, in the usual form, that the property in the proceedings men-
tioned be sold; which was sold accordingly. After which the following
remarks and orders were made:

HANSON, C., 8th December, 1796.—It is stated, that Jacob Scheisler con-
tracted for the Bale of a parcel of ground in Frederick County, to Christian
Baker, for £50 on credit; that the contract was, that a deed be given on
Baker's executing a bond for the money: that Baker took possession and
died without having executed a bond, or taken a conveyance; but that,
before his death Baker paid one year's interest on the said £50, to Scheisler;
that after Baker's death his creditors obtained a decree for selling his real
estate; that under the decree, the said lot, which had been improved by
Baker, was sold with other property, in which Baker had a legal estate in