TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN.—2 BLAND. 51

rents and profits received by them. Thorndike v. Allington, 1
Chan. Co.: 79; Elliot v. Hancocle, 2 Vern. 143. It is therefore clear,
that these plaintiffs have sufficiently set forth such a combination
of facts, as shews that they have a just claim to relief) and that
they may, with propriety, ask that relief of a Court of equity.
Com. Dig. Lit. Chancery, 3 E. 3.

It appearing then, that these plaintiffs have jnst grounds to ask
relief of this Court; and that, therefore, the case may be referred
to the auditor for any purpose falling within the scope of its duty;
the next inquiry is. as to the mode in which they should be relieved.
In making this inquiry, it must be recollected, that this is a case
of provisions for children, which admits, perhaps, of a greater va-
riety of determinations, and of judgment on circumstances, than
any other kind of case that can be brought before a Court of equity,
Teynham v. Webb, 2 Ves. 206; ami that the relief, whatever may
be its form, is to be granted against infants; for the protection of
whose interests the Court is in the habit of proceeding guardedly
and with caution. Stapilton v. Stapilton, 1 Atk. 6; De Manneville
v. De Mannerville, 10 Ves. 59; Still v. Hoiste, 6 Mad. 192. It will
therefore be proper to make some inquiry into the particulars and
details of this case, that the Court may be enabled properly to ex-
ercise its greater latitude of determination, for the benefit of all
these children, and with the least disadvantage to the interests of
these infants.

It may be, that this real estate is, in truth, of much less, or of
no greater value than the annuity with which. it is charged. In
that case, it would be thus shewn to have been the intention of the
testator, who must have known the value of his estate, to give to
the plaintiff', Anna Maria, a life interest in it: or that, whatever
might have been his intention, his express direction would
be * carried into effect, most beneficially for all concerned, 55
by a sale. But if, on the other hand, it should appear, that the
annual value of the land was greatly more than sufficient to pay
the annuity, then it may fairly be inferred, that the testator could
not have intended that the estate should be sold; but as the annu-
ity might, so it should, as expressly directed, be raised out of the
rents and profits. Ivy v. Gibert, 2 P. Will. 19; Colpoys v. Colpoys,
4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 210. In order to form a correct opinion as to
those matters, an inquiry must be made, and the Court must be
informed as to the value of the land; the amount of its annual
value; of its rents and profits; and also of the age and health of
the annuitant, so as to enable it to put a present value upon the
annuity, compared with the land upon which it is charged. And
as there may be a personal decree in respect to the amount of the
rents and profits actually received, or which might and ought to
have been received by some of these defendants, it will be proper