392 JONES v. STOCKETT.— 2 BLAND.

13th of December, 1830., the executors King and Hebb, tiled objec-
tions to an allowance of any of the claims now tiled, or which
might hereafter be filed, &c. Some time after which, the matters
in controversy were finally adjusted by an agreement among the
parties, and the case so closed.

4OO * JOKES v. STOCKETT.

LEGACY TO ONE FOR LIFE WITH REMAINDER OVER.— INVESTMENTS.—INTEREST
ON ANNUITY.—RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF TRUSTEES.—PARENT AND CHILD.—
REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES.

A legacy to a woman directed to be put out on good security, and the annual
interest to be paid to her during her life, remainder to her children
should not be placed in the hands of her husband on any terms, or be
lent on mere personal security, (a)

The legatee for life, of such a legacy, should be heard as to the mode of
putting out the legacy; the Court, considering itself as ex officio guardian
of the interest of those in remainder, the legacy was, on the suggestion
of the legatee for life, invested in bank stock; acd the loss of interest,
which might have been made, from the time the money was brought
into Court until it was invested, was directed to be borne by the legatee
for life, (b)

An annuity, like a pecuniary legacy, in general, carries interest only from
one year after the death of the testator; the exceptions to this rule.

Under the head of just allowances a trustee may be allowed a fee paid to a
solicitor for advice in relation to his trust, (c)

A complaint, that a trustee holds the trust fund in his hands idle and un-
profitable, necessarily implies that it should be brought into Court and
invested.

There are few cases in which trustees may not decline to act without direc-
tion of the Court, (d)

Although a trustee may have no pecuniary interest in the subject, yet he has
duties to perform, in regard to which he should keep the Court correctly
informed.

In what cases, and how far the Court will interfere with the relations of
parent and child.

In what cases the Court will remove or discharge a trustee, after he has ac-
cepted the trust.

THIS bill was filed on the 16th of October, 1813, by Samuel Jones
of Joshua, and Ann his wife, against Eichard G. Stockettand Henry
Wayman. The bill states that Larkin Shipiey, on the 19th of Feb-

(a) See Evans v. Iglehart, 6 G, & J. 173, note (c).

(6) See Gray v. Lynch, 8 Gill, 403, note (b); Murray v. Feinour, 2 Md. Ch.
418.

(c) Approved in Laroque v. Condole, 4 Md. Ch. 348. See also Hagthrop v.
Hook, 1 G. & J. 305.

(d) See Abell v. Brown, 55 Md. 217.