WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.—2 BLAND. 167

the rents and profits; and that they might have such other relief
as the nature of the case may require, &e.

The defendant, John Diffenderffer, by his answer, admitted,
that Charles Eogers had made his will and died, leaving a large
estate, and four daughters as set forth in the bill; that Sarah had
died leaving the plaintiff Aramiata, her only child, who had mar-
ried the other plaintiff William; that this defendant had married
Catherine, who was then dead, leaving the three other defendants,
her children and heirs, who were all then minors; that the trus-
tees, appointed by the testator, Charles Eogers, had refused to
undertake the trust, iu consequence of which, an application had
been made to this Court, and a trustee appointed, as set forth in
the proceedings in the case of Rogers v. Merryman; that this de-
fendant had, from time to time, received from the trustee, Vincent,
sums of money, on account of the distributive share due to his
wife; and there remained a large balance due to her; whilst the
other parties received considerable sums more than was due to
them; that Ann Martin died on the 5th of May, 1807; and Mary
Lee on the 21st of January, 1808, both without issue; that, at the
request of the trustee, Vincent, this defendant had taken posses-
sion of the property on Calvert and Baltimore streets; and also of
sundry ground rents in the City of Baltimore, which he had a right
to do under the will, after the death of Ann and Mary, whereby
the estate survived to his children, the heirs of Catherine; that he
* had received from the estate, from the 16th of January,
1815, to the 28th of November, 1825, deducting the amount 178
paid for taxes, repairs, &c., the sum of $24,149.35 1/2, for all which
he was ready to account; that he had not taken possession of any
other part of the testator's estate, or received any other rents and
profits than those specified; and chat the property devised to
Sarah was more than her equal proportion of her father's estate.

The three infant defendants put in their answers by guardian
ad litem, in which they stated, that they had no knowledge of the
matters set forth in the bill; and prayed, that their interests might
be protected, &c.

To these answers the plaintiffs put in a general replication; and
commissions were issued to take testimony; under which the depo-
sitions of sundry witnesses were taken and returned on the 7th of
September, 1827. After which, the defendant, John Diffenderffer,
with the consent of parties, was allowed to amend his answer; in
which amended answer he stated, that the devisee, Ann, with her
husband, Alexander Martin, had executed a conveyance of the
property devised to her, whereby she had docked the estate tail
therein given to her; so that William Hitchborn became seized
thereof in fee simple, in trust for her sole and separate use; after
which she had, by her last will devised the property as therein
specified, and died.