398 JONES v. STOOKBTT.—2 BLAND.

sum due, if any, to the complainants on account of Ann Jones'
annuity. And also submitted to the Chancellor, "whether the
loss of interest occasioned by the deposit of the moneys brought
into Court is to be borne by the complainants or the estate?" and
"whether the complainants and defendants, or any of them, are
to be allowed costs against the estate? "

BLAND, C., 25th April, 1827.—I have examined the proceedings
and reflected upon the question submitted. The plaintiffs by
their bill complained, that the defendants had suffered the legacy,
the profits of which were given to the plaintiff Ann to remain in
their hands unproductive; whereby the interest, which might
otherwise have been accumulated and paid to her, was lost.
And prayed, that the trustees might be ordered to make an in-
vestment thereof. The defendant Stockett answered, and brought
into Court a great proportion of the legacy, which was ordered to
be deposited as usual, as I have before remarked, for safety, and
until the plaintiffs should suggest a mode of investment. Hence,
it, is evident, that the plaintiffs, in effect, called the, money into
Court; and it was their fault, that it remained here so long unpro-
ductive. The trustees being blameless, are therefore not charge-
able; and there is no ground upon which these plaintiffs can have
the estate taxed, to the prejudice of others, for the purpose of re-
imbursing them for a, loss occasioned by their own mismanage-
ment or negligence: for even if the trustees had been guilty of
any misconduct, the estate could not be charged to make good the
loss; Anonymous, 1 Salk. 153; Carter v. Barnadiston, 1 P. Will. 518;
and upon the same general principles, neither these trustees nor
the estate can be charged with costs. Curteis v. Candler, G Mad.
123.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the loss of interest occasioned by
the deposit of any moneys in this Court, pursuant to the order of
the 31st of August, 1825, be borne by the complainants; that they
pay all costs; and that this case be. ami the same is hereby referred
to the auditor, with directions to state an account or accounts, in
pursuance of the foregoing agreement and of this order.

After which the auditor made up a report, as of the 8th of No-
vember, 1827, which he filed on the, 15th of the. same month, in
* which he says that he had stated and therewith returned
416 accounts A and B, between each of the defendants, as an
executor, and the estate of Larkin Shipley, deceased; and also
account C, between said estate and the complainants Jones and
wife; that there was a balance in the hands of Wayman of $51.68,
and in the hands of Stockett of $145.95; and that there was due to
Jones and wife, on account of interest on their legacy, the sum
of $144.01. The auditor further says, that he had allowed Stockett