JONES v. STOCKETT.—2 BLAND. 407

of any one; or to insure its proper application in any legal way as
prescribed by the owner, that although such trustee may, in
almost all cases, if he thinks proper, take upon himself the risk
of properly executing the trust without assistance from any quar-
ter; yet lie is not absolutely bound to do so. He may in all cases
where the nature of the trust is governed by principles of equity,
as most commonly happens, ask the direction of a Court of Chan-
cery: and act under the indemnity of its decree; not because such
a Court is, in itself, considered as a. proper or suitable agent for
the mere safe-keeping, or management of any property; but be-
cause wtiere property has been put into a particular course, allowed
and regulated only by principles of equity, it is lit and proper, that
all who have a beneficial vested interest in it: as well as the agent
to whose management it has been confided, should have an oppor-
tunity of coming before a tribunal whose peculiar province it is to
apply such principles; and have such property so regulated; as
well that those who may be then, or thereafter beneficially inte-
rested, may sustain no loss, as that the trustee may fall into no
mistakes, nor be subjected to any unreasonable responsibility in
cases, where the rules of equity, by which his administration must
be governed, are complex and of difficult application. And there-
fore it is, that in all such cases, where a trustee comes before a
Court of equity, as a plaintiff, or is brought before it as a defend-
ant, and declines to execute the trust without the direction and in-
demnity of the Court, he is held to be so entirely justifiable in
thus seeking its protection, that he is never charged with interest
or costs; and that all such losses and expenses are directed to be
borne by the particular trust fund in regard to which the direction
has been required. Leech v. Leech, 1 Cha. Ca. 249: Brown v. Lit-
ton, 1 P. Will. 140; Trafford v. Boehm, 3 Atk. 448; Brooks v. Rey-
nolds, 1 Bro. C. C. 183: Hancom v. Alien, 2 Dick. 498; Brown v.
Yeale, 7 Ves. 50, note; Curteis v. Candler. 6 Mad. 123; David v.
Frowd, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 8.

Now in the case under consideration, the plaintiffs. Jones and
wife, had complained, that these trustees had suffered the trust
fund to remain in their hands unproductive; and one of the trus-
tees, for they cannot act separately; Nicolxon v. Wordsworth, 2
Swan. 370; 2 Fonb. 181; came.in. at once, submitted to, *and
prayed the direction of the Court as to the mode of execut- 426
ing the trust—whence it was clear, that no investment could be
made until directed by the Court; and, as in that interval the
trustees could not be charged with interest, no profits, to which
alone Jones and wife were entitled, could have been derived from
the $7,000. But Jones and wife had themselves complained, that
to sutler the legacy to remain in the hands of the trustees would
put at great hazard the principal sum; and consequently the inte-
rest thereon; indeed, it was obvious, that the entire value of their