TOWNSHEND v. DUNGAN.—2 BLAND, 47

Iglehart, he had been summoned as a defendant, and the suit had
been revived against him accordingly.

Upon these facts the plaintiffs have prayed for an account; that
the land might be sold; and that the proceeds thereof might be
applied to the payment of their annuity with costs, and the bal-
ance so invested as to stand as an available fund to meet future
instalments of said annuity; or, that such other relief might be
given to them as to the Court might seent meet.

It will be seen by adverting to the will of William Dun can de-
ceased, that he has expressly declared, that the annuity should be
paid out of the rents and profits of the estate; thus unequivocally
shewing it to have been his intention, that it should be charged
altogether and exclusively upon that estate; and that his per-
sonalty should be in no way liable; Elliot v. Hancock, 2 Vern. 143;
Attorney-General v. Downing, Amb. 571;—consequently, it could
not have been necessary for the plaintiffs to say anything of the
deceased's persona! estate; or to have made his executrix or ad-
ministrator a party to this suit.

The subject claimed by these plaintiffs is an annuity charged
upon, and payable out of the rents and profits of a certain real
estate; which real estate, so charged, was devised to these infant
defendants William and Caroline. These facts are sufficiently
stated in the bill, and are more fully shewn by the last will of the
testator, which is exhibited as a part of it. The bill further states,
that after the death of the testator, Deborah, who was the mother
of the infant defendants William and Caroline, paid the plaintiff
Anna Maria one year's annuity; and that the defendant Robinson,
who is their guardian, also paid the plaintiff Anna Maria one
year's annuity, under her father's will. Here then is a sufficient
statement of the fact, that these infant defendants, by their
mother, and afterwards by their legal guardian, took the real
estate so devised to them; and actually, in consequence thereof,
paid a part of the annuity so charged upon it.

*The bill, it is true, does not allege that the devisees, or
their guardian, received the rents and profits of the land 51
charged with the payment of the annuity. But no such allegation
by the plaintiffs was necessary, since it was enough for them to
have shewn that the devisees actually took the estate as devised.
If they derived no profit from it, it was their own fault; and a mat-
ter with which the plaintiffs could have no concern. If the estate
charged was wholly insufficient to pay the annuity, they should
have disclaimed all right to it; or the fact should have been, in
some way, put upon the record by the defendants; which has not
been done. But, according to the common law, the mother, as
guardian, has an interest in, and is bound to take charge of her
ward's estate. Ratcliff's Case, 3 Co. 38; Roach v. Garvan, 1 Ves.
158; Hellish v. De Costa, 2 Atk. 14; Smith v. Marshall, 2 Atk. 70;