402 JONES v. STOCKETT.—2 BLAND.

It appears, from a certificate of the register of wills of Anne
Arundel County, that John Shipleyhad, on the 27th of July, 1.828,
given bond as guardian of Larkin Shipley.

On the 22d of September, 1828, the defendants Jones and wife
put in their answer to this bill, and admitted the beforementioned
facts and proceedings, as therein stated, and prayed that the mort-
gage of the estate of the defendant Stockett might not be consid-
ered as a part of the legacy given to them, but that the trustees
might be ordered to collect the estate of the testator, and make au
investment of the balance of their legacy, giving to them an oppor-
tunity of making a suggestion of what might appear to them to be
fit and proper objects of investment, they being alone interested in
the said investment. And they say that they are willing that the
balance of their legacy may be brought-in and invested as before
directed, although the bringing in of the sum of $3.552, as before
stated, into this Court, was not only not prayed for by these de-
fendants, but was contrary to their wishes, and occasioned to them
a loss of five months interest, as aforesaid; and that the course
taken heretofore by this Court, without the desire, and to the disad-
vantage of these defendants: is now prayed for and requested; be-
cause it will be, more satisfactory and safe, and there will be no
probability that the same may not be promptly invested.

*On the 20th of October, 1828, these defendants Stockett
420 and Wayman, by their petition, prayed that this defendant
Samuel Jones might be appointed trustee in their place, of the
legacy of $7,000, and that the amount might be paid into his
hands as such, to be held and disposed of by him, under the direc-
tion of this Court.

On the 27th of October, 1829, the defendant Wayman filed his
answer, in which he admitted as before the facts, as stated in the
previous proceedings, and prayed that those proceedings might be
taken as a part of this, his answer. He then set forth the reasons
why some of the debts due to his testator had not been sooner col-
lected, and why some of them still remained to be got in; and he
then further stated, that the plaintiff Larkin was then au infant,
about twelve years of age, and lived with his father, who could not
require that any portion of the profits of the estate should be ap-
plied to the support of the plaintiff; that, as was intended by the
testator, he had placed the plaintiff at a school, when he was old
enough, and continued him there until his father took him away:
and he was not then at any school; that the father was not entitled
to have any part of the rents and profits of the testator's estate
paid to him for the support of his own child, or while he refused
to permit the child to receive the education intended to be given
to him by the testator. And, therefore, this defendant had for
some time declined to pay any to the father, conceiving that, if