278 CONTEE v. DAWSON.—2 BLAND.

land, to the trustees of the legacy, and paid by them; fifth, because
no allowance is made for the loss upon 'that portion of the legacy
invested by William Dawson, in the stock of the City Bank of
Baltimore; but his estate is charged with the whole sum so in-
vested; sixth, because no credit is given for the amount of the
legacy loaned to Mrs. Clerklee; seventh, because said report and
accounts are in many other particulars erroneous and not war-
ranted by the proof and proceedings in the case.

BLAND, C., 26th January, 1S30.—This case standing ready for
final hearing, and having been submitted, without argument, the
proceedings were read and considered.

On reviewing the order of the 14th of April last, and consider-
ing the proofs taken under it, as reported by the auditor with his
statements, it appears, that a question has arisen, which was not
at all contemplated by the reasoning and explanations with which
the case was sent to the auditor.

The late trustee William Dawson, in his letter of the 9th of July,
1818, speaking of the sale of the British stocks, in which the leg-
acy had been invested, says, ''that by the advance in the price
of the funds, and some interest since the death of Major Clerk,
the amount paid to my banker, is £2,406 14s. 2d. sterling." When
this case was last tinder consideration, there was no proof by which
the allusion of this expression, "and some interest, since the death
of Major Clerk," could be shewn to a;pply to any other than the
dividends arising from the investment made by the trustees; and
which belonging to Margaret R. Clerklee, as tenant for life of the
legacy, could not be awarded to those of her children who were
parties to this suit. T therefore directed the amount of such inte-
rest to be ascertained by proof, to be laid before the auditor; and
that the defendant Eleanor Dawson should be charged with the
principal of the amount for which the British stock sold; intend-
ing thereby to exclude from the sum to be divided among these
legatees *in remainder all interest or dividends received by
297 the trustees from the investment, and to which Margaret R.

Clerklee had become entitled.

But it now appears by an account between the late trustees and
their agent, reported by the auditor as part of the proofs laid
before him, that a large amount of interest on the legacy of £1,500
had accumulated in the hands of the executors of the testatrix Ann
Eussell, which had been paid by them, with the principal, to the
trustees who had invested the whole accordingly as capital, after
deducting the costs and charges of the transaction. These addi-
tional facts give rise to the objection, that the interest, which
accrued upon the legacy from the death of the testatrix to the
time of the investment, belonged exclusively to Margaret R. Clerk-
lee the tenant for life; and, not being a part of the capital, directed