BARRY VS. BARRY. 21

of August following, William J. Barry, one of the heirs at law
of said Robert Barry, and one of those who had sold his in-
terest in the above mentioned property to John Glenn, filed a
petition, stating that the trustee both before and after his ap-
pointment, contracted, and agreed to charge no commission,
and praying that the Auditor's accounts allowing him the same,
might be corrected and that the interlocutory orders of the 8th
and 18th of November, 1844, and those ratifying the Auditor's
accounts, might be vacated and set aside. A petition with
similar averments was filed by John Glenn, who also stated
that he had purchased five of the seven parts into which the
property was to be divided, relying upon the assurances of the
trustee that he would charge no commission for his services,
and prayed that the same might not be allowed. The answer
of the trustee to the petition of William Barry, with which his
answer to that of said Glenn substantially agreed, stated, that it
was thought at one time that the property could be sold by an
agent, in which case he promised to undertake the duty as a
friend of the heirs, charging no commission for selling and
distributing the money, but that he never contracted to make
no charge as trustee under the appointment of the court.
That, could the property have been sold under the decree in a
reasonable time, and without involving him in extraordinary
labor and trouble, he had intended charging no commission be-
yond what would cover his expenses, and to that extent be-
lieved he had expressed himself. The trustee also denied that
he had contracted to make no charge for renting the property,
&c.; he admitted, that after the sale, he had mentioned to the
purchaser that he did not design charging a commission on
the purchase money, but upon reflection he had since deter-
mined to submit the question to the court, in view of his trouble
in discharging the trust.

A great deal of testimony was from time to time taken in the
case, and the questions presented by the petitions having been
argued before the Chancellor, he at this term delivered the fol
lowing opinion:]