CONTEE v. DAWSON—2 BLAND. 279

to be invested, must be deducted from the amount which the late
trustee William Dawson acknowledged he had received.

I conceive it to have been the intention of the testatrix to allow
a reasonable time to the trustees to make an investment of this
legacy as directed; and that all its accumulations in the hands of
her executors, in the way of interest, were to be considered as par-
cels of its principal, and to be invested, as such, by the trustees
when paid to them. It is true, that where there has been any
unreasonable delay in making such an investment, or the tenant
for life would, by being postponed until it was actually made, be
materially injured, he has been allowed the accruing interest from
the end of one year after tlte death; but here no such unforseeri or
injurious delay has been alleged or shewn. Gibson v. Bott, 7 Ves.
89. The testatrix gave to the late Margaret R. Clerklee during
her life, only the dividends arising from the investment, not the
interest on the sum of £1,500. There is a material distinction be-
tween the interest on money, and dividends on, stock. Interest
accumulates from day to day; but the dividends on stock are made
payable on certain days like rent; and therefore, on the death of
the tenant for life, interest would be calculated up to the very day
of the death; but of dividends there could be no such exact appor-
tionment; the amount not actually payable at the time of the death
of the tenant lor life, would go to him in remainder. And there-
fore, in general, when the interest, dividends, or profits of stock
are given to one for life, nothing * passes to the tenant for 298
life but the ordinary and proper dividends of such stock.
Wilson v. Harmon, 2 Ves. 673; Hamilton v. Lloyd, 2 Ves. Jun. 416;
Paris v. Paris, 10 Ves. 185; Witts v. Steers, 13 Ves. 363; Clancy's
Hush. & Wife, 387.

It is clear, from the proofs, now adduced, that the trustees them-
selves, with the knowledge and acquiescence of Margaret If. Clerk-
lee, the tenant for life, considered those accumulations of the leg-
acy, which they received from the executors, as a part of its capital;
and actually invested them, as such, for the benefit of all as well
for the tenant for life, as for those in remainder; and that the
late trustee William Dawson, by the expression, "some interest
since the death of Major Clerk," had no allusion whatever to any
dividends to which Margaret K. Clerklee, the tenant for life, was
exclusively entitled; but to certain accumulations of interest which
had been received from the executors, and which had been invested
as a part of the capital of the legacy itself. And from the whole
of the proofs, it is now clear, that Margaret R. Clerklee, the late
tenant for life, must have received all the interest or dividends to
which she was in any manner entitled; and that she had received
from those trustees no dividends or interest which had not then
come to their hands for her use, and which they ought now to be
allowed to retain. And consequently, that the sum which the