REBECCA OWINGS' CASE.—1 BLAND. 277

trustees of Eebecca, and thus pass over this first difficulty, as to
the proper parties.

The next question is, what is the nature of the bequest of the
late Samuel Owings to his daughter Rebecca? The defendant
seems to have a notion, that his father gave him the right to take
charge of the person of his sister, and to maintain her as he
thought proper. But the devise conveys no such idea; and if it
did, it is clear, that although a father may appoint a guardian of
his infant children; yet he cannot dispose of the custody of his
adult children whether of sound mind or non compos mentis, in
any way whatever. Ex parte Liulloic, 2 P. Will. 635. It is evi-
dent, however, that the testator had no reference to the custody
or the place of residence of his daughter; his expressions show,
that his thoughts were directed exclusively to her maintenance, in
whatever place she might dwell. And that * maintenance
he endeavors to make as unalterably and imperishably cer- 296
tain as the nature of things would admit. His sou William was
to take the estate he gave him expressh upon the condition, that
he maintained Rebecca. William has taken the estate; and, con-
sequently, he has assumed this duty to Rebecca, and has become
personally bound to her, in consideration of the estate he has thus
taken and now enjoys. But this condition is not confirmed to
William Owings personally and only: it is extended to "the per-
son or persons to whom the estate may eventually pass.'' It is a
condition, that runs with the land; and is a continuing charge
upon it. The Mayor of Congleton v. Pattison, 10 East, 130; Powell's
Cane, Nelson, 202; Elliott v. Merryman, Barn. Ch. Rep. 82. It is an
incumbrance to which the land is liable in the hands of every one,
(not having a better title than the devisor,) during the life of
Rebecca. This charge upon the land devised to William Owings
cannot be deemed a rent of any description; nor can it properly be
considered as an annuity; because by an annuity the person alone
is charged; no land is encumbered with it. But here the land is
charged, and the person only in respect of the enjoyment of that
land. This devise, therefore, has given to Rebecca a particular
interest in the land. Clark v. Ross Dick. 529; Pow. Mort. 221,
1032; Co. Litt. 4, 122; West v. Biscoe, 6 H. & J. 460; Attorney-
General vs. Christ a Hospital, 3 Bro. C. C. 165.

It has imposed upon it an incumbrance, which follows it into the
hands of William and every holder during the life of Rebecca.
It is a kind of legacy, the punctual payment of which this Court
will, and, perhaps, only can enforce.

It is then clear, that these plaintiffs are properly here; and that
they ought to obtain relief: the mode in which it should be granted
is the only remaining enquiry. Under the general prayer the
Court is left free to adopt any mode by which it can most readily
-and effectually administer that relief which the equity of the case