JONES v. STOCKETT.—2 BLAND. 415

other respects with this decree be and the same are hereby ratified
and confirmed; and so far as the same, with the exceptions thereto,
may be at variance with this decree the same are hereby rejected
and overruled. And it is further decreed, that all the costs of
these suits and proceedings to be taxed by the register, except
where such costs have, been otherwise directed to be paid by any
previous order, be paid by the said trustees, and deducted, in due
proportion, from the * proceeds of the property of the said
legatees, which have or may come to their hands. 434

On the 22d of February, 1830. the trustee Wayman, by way of
report, brought into Court the vouchers of three claims which he
had held for the estate and legatees of his testator: and declining
to give bond, as required by the decree of the 5th of November,
1829, said, that in conformity, as he believed, to the wishes of
Jones and wife, recommended in his place Joshua Jones, of Freder-
ick County. And Jones and wife, by their petition, filed on the
9th of March following, expressed their assent to the resignation
of the trustee Wayman; and proposed, with the approbation of
the Court, that Joshua Jones, of Frederick County, should be ap-
pointed in his place. To which proposition the solicitor of the
trustee Stockett, and of Larkin Shipley, the legatee, by their note
in writing, expressed their consent. Upon which the matter was
submitted.

BLAND, C., 20th March, 1830.—The petitioner is Samuel Jones
of Joshua, that is, as it would seem, the son of this Joshua Jones
of Frederick. If that be the case, then it appears, that after
having failed to have himself appointed trustee of this legacy
of $7,000, and thus directly getting it into his own hands, he
now, indirectly, seeks to attain the same object, by having it
placed in the hands of his father. In answer to such movements I
would say, in the language of one of England's most distinguished
Chancellors, Lord Nottingham, "I like not that, a man should be
ambitious of a trust when he can get nothing but trouble by it;"
Uvedale v. Ettrick, 2 Cha. Ca. 131; and therefore declare, without any
refleetion on this Joshua Jones of Frederick, that he shall not, as
trustee, meddle with this trust.

It is true, that this Court may, for just cause, remove a trustee
and appoint another in his place; as where the trustee had become,
by reason of age or infirmity, unable to attend to his duties; Mil-
bard v, Lambe, Amb,, 309; Sennet v. Honywood, Amb. 710; or where
a feme sole trustee had married a foreigner; for, although -a feme
covert is not incompetent to officiate as a trustee, yet there is
much inconvenience in her doing so, and especially when she
may, as the wife of a foreigner, be taken out of the State; Lake
v. De Lambert, 4 Ves. 593; or where the trustee had gone abroad