48 LATIMEE v. HANSON.—1 BLAND.

accounted for. At the foot of that account he has charged the
trustee with interest also, from 1st January, 1822, as directed;
and this makes the balance in his hands to be $1,393.22, bearing
further interest from 6th April, 1825.

On the 14th of July, 1825, Nicholas Brewer, the trustee, filed his
report, on oath, shewing cause in obedience to the order of the
17th of March, 1825, in which report he says, "That by the decree,
under which he acted, it became his duty to sell the property de-
creed to be sold, to take bond with sufficient sureties for the pur-
chase money, to bring the bonds so taken, and the purchase money
when received into Court, or to apply it under the Chancellor's
direction to those entitled to receive it, and he humbly conceives,
that the Chancellor had no power to order him to invest the money
when received and the accruing dividends compelling him to
undergo labor and encounter risks not contemplated by his origi-
nal appointment, nor intended to be compensated by his com-
mission, nor does he believe, that the Chancellor had any power
to order the investment of the proceeds of the sale of the real
estate at all.

"Notwithstanding, the trustee further states, that in obedience
to the said order he did endeavor to procure stock of the Farmers
Bank of Maryland, but was not successful; and the stock of the
Government of the United States was, at the date of the order,
and ever since has been. above par, and would not have secured
to the claimants six per cent, interest on their claims, which ap-
peared to be the object of the petitioners. And the trustee, resid-
ing in Annapolis, could not Lave obtained it, even at the then value,
without the employment of brokers, or other agents, at the ex-
pense of commission to them, and involving risk to himself by
their possible infidelity.

*"The trustee further represents, that he has made no
55 interest from the funds in his hands, nor derived any pecu-
niary advantage from them, but has always been ready to bring
them into Court when required In the Chancellor to do so, and
should have brought the whole into Court under the Chancellor's
order of the 17th March last, but that the auditor's statement,
ascertaining the exact amount to be brought in. had not been
made, and he is ready to bring in the residue.

" The trustee further states, that the only dispute, that he knows
of, which rendered it doubti'ul whether the heirs or devisees of said
Wallace or his creditors should receive the said funds, was a suit
in this Court by Charles W. Hanson, executor of Wallace, against
John Murray, executor of John Muir, to which the trustee refers,
in which the auditor's report was made on the 4th of July, 1821,
and was understood to be acquiesced in, and the decree passed on
the 23d of February, 1824; and which case the trustee was in daily
expectation of being decided a considerable time before; and he