588. ADDISON v. BOWIE.— 2 BLAND.

from the negroes thus appropriated among them, more than was
expressly given. William Bowie could not have the use and profits
of any more than the class which might by lot fall to him. The
profits of the third given to his son William D. Bowie certainly
vested in him at once: and so, too, the profits of the other third,
which were awarded by lot to the rest of the children vested in
them as a specific legacy.

A father is bound to maintain his infant children, if able; 2 Inst.

112; Harrey v. Harrey, Barnard C. Rep. 107; Butler v. Butler, 3

Atk. 60; Rawlins v. Goldfrop, 5 Vea. 444; and, therefore, nothing

is ever allowed to him for that purpose out of the infants' peculiar

estate, unless upon special grounds. It * does not appear

620 that William, the father, ever claimed any allowance for the
maintenance of these, his infant children, out of the legacy given
to them; nor has it been shewn that his fortune was not amply
sufficient to maintain all his children; or that there were any spe-
cial circumstances upon which he could have rested such a claim
of an allowance for maintenance out of the legacy of negroes and
stock given to his infant children; therefore no such allowance can
be made. And as the negroes were held for them, by their father,
as their natural guardian, he must be held accountable to them for
their profits accordingly. Jackson v. Jackson, 1 Atk. 514; Hughes
v. Hughes, 1 Bro. C. C. 387; Roste v. Pratt, 3 Ves. 733; Collis v.
Blackburn, 9 Ves. 470; Errington v. Chapman, 12 Ves. 20; Maberly
v. Turton, 14 Ves. 500; Jervoise v. Silk, Coop. Rep. 52; 1810, ch.
203, s. 1.

By the last of these three clauses of the will of the testator
Baruck, the legacy of the one-third of the negroes is given to the
rest of the children as they arrive at age; that is, sixteen for girls.
And consequently this one-third of the negroes vested in equal
shares in each of these children, who were in being when the eldest
of them reached the age designated by this testator as the point
of time when the whole of that third should vest and be distributed.
Before that time all these children of this testator's daughter
Kitty had come into being; and, therefore, this one-third of the
negroes, with their profits so vested in them at that time, must be
awarded to them accordingly. Barrington v. Tristran, 6 Ves. 345.

The second of these wills is, that of the late William Bowie, of
Walter. There are several provisions oi' this will, not now neces-
sary to be considered; but those clauses of it which have been the
principal causes of involving these parties in this controversy are
expressed in the following words:

" My father-in-law, the late Baruck Duckett, having devised his
dwelling plantation to me during life, and also the land called
Jeremiah and Mary, and the resurvey thereon, with power and

authority to me to designate any one or more of my children by
his daughter, and to devise it to them in fee at my discretion, I do