JONES v. STOCKETT.—2 BLAND. 405

$323.75. And in addition to the said balance, the said Jolm Ship-
ley, as next friend, claims to be re-imbursed his legal costs of suit,
and also, the sum of $40 as an additional fee to his solicitor, which
was in the opinion of the auditor a reasonable fee.

The plaintiff. Larkin Shipley, excepted to the account of the
trustee Stockett, designated by the auditor as the second account.
And also to the auditor's account, filed on the 15th of November,
1827, in the case of Jones and wife, which by the interlocutory
* decree of the 5th of November, had been consolidated

with this case. 1. Because, in the account filed on the 15th 423
of November, 1827. the expenditures and commissions of the said
Stoekett, were allowed out of the principal sums received by him;
whereas, they ought, to have been allowed out of the interest due
on his mortgage annually. 2. Because, in the second account,
filed on the 4th December, Stoekett was charged with simple inte-
rest on his mortgage; whereas, the interest being payable annu-
ally, ought to have been paid in the discharge of the annuity due
to Jones and wife; or, otherwise laid out for the benefit of the
estate, which not having been done, compound interest ought to
be charged.

BLAND, C., 28th January, 1830.—This case, as consolidated,
standing ready for hearing, and having been submitted on the
notes of the solicitors of the parties, the proceedings were read
and considered.

The original plaintiffs, Jones and wife, seem to have taken some
very erroneous views of their case, which it may be well here to
notice, lest improper inferences should otherwise be deduced from
them. They have roundly affirmed, that they alone were interested
in the investment of this legacy of $7,000.

This positive and comprehensive allegation, to say the least of
it, could only have proceeded from inattention to the express lan-
guage of the will under which they claim: by which, it unequivo-
cally appears, that although the testator says, T give to my niece
Ann Shipley, the sum of $7,000; yet he does so, upon the express
condition, that no more than " the annual interest thereof, shall
be paid to her yearly during her natural life." By which the tes-
tator, in this peculiar and mixed disposition of that amount of his
estate, in effect, gave her nothing more than a legacy in nature of
an annuity, constituted of only such profits as might be safely de-
rived from $7,000 so disposed of. Franks v. Noble, 12 Ves. 490.
And consequently the plaintiff Samuel Jones, became entitled only
in right of his wife, to that indefinite annuity, during her life.
But the testator directs, that, after her death, the $7,000 shall go
to her lawful issue; and therefore, her children by Jones and by
any other husband stand alike and next in remainder; and on her
leaving no lawful issue, to go over to others. Therefore, so far