408 JONES v. STOCKETT.— 2 BLAND.

interest in the sum of $7,000, depended altogether upon its being
immediately placed in safety; and, as soon thereafter as it might
be judiciously done, profitably invested. It therefore clearly fol-
lowed, that although Jones and wife had not, in so many words,
prayed, that the legacy of $7,000 should be brought into Court;
that nevertheless, it was the necessary result of the actual com-
plaint and prayer of their bill.and most emphatically so after they
had been informed by the answer of Stockett, that the trustees
declined to execute their trust without the direction and indem-
nity of the Court; for then the bringing of the money into Court
was the most direct and suitable answer which could have been
given to their complaint; and the best step which could have been
taken in their behalf, as preparatory to that investment for which
they especially prayed. But it would seem from their answer, and
the petition of the trustees, filed on the 20th of October, 1828,
that they had had other objects in view; and that they had been
thwarted in their expectations by the order of the 21st of Septem-
ber, 1825.

The trustee Stockett, in his report in answer to the order of the
20th of January, 1826, seems to have misunderstood the Chancel-
lor; and to have formed an inadequate notion of his own situation.
If by an interest in the matter, lie means a pecuniary benefit, it is
certain, that he not only has no interest adverse to that of Jones
and wife, but none whatever in opposition to any one else. But,
as trustee he holds an important office; and he has duties to per-
form which have a direct bearing as well as upon the interests of
Jones and wife as upon all others who may take in remainder after
them. And consequently, when he comes, or is brought here, in
respect of that office and those duties, although he may with pro-
priety claim the direction and indemnity of the Court, he cannot
be justified in simply casting the whole matter before it, and leav-
ing it to act blindly without information, or upon mere presump-
tions. He is one of the fiduciaries of this property, chosen by
* the late owner, as a trustworthy agent for conducting it
427 along a prescribed line; in regard to which the Court always
expects to hear from him; and. when he stands blameless, hears
him with favor and confidence. Therefore, when such a trustee
asks the assistance and protection of the Court, in the execution
of his trust, it is his duty to give the Court all the information in
his power, in order to enable it to give directions most suitable to
the true nature of the case, and such as may be alike beneficial to
all concerned. Wallcer v. Symonds, 3 Swan. 58; Winder v. Diffen-
derffer, ante, 174.

Passing from the consideration of these matters in relation to
the legacy given to the plaintiff Ann for life with remainder over,
it will be seen, that there has been admitted into this case, as now
consolidated,. a new plaintiff, Larkin Shipley, another legatee