SEWALL VS. COSTIGAN. 211

the decree, had made advances for the support of the husband
and wife and paid money in discharge of the debts of the hus-
band, which ought to be reimbursed; and, that no order ought
to be passed for bringing in the money until the husband and
wife answered a petition of the trustee for the sale, as to those
advances, filed on the day of the hearing. To this the court said:]

The sums thus alleged to have been advanced by the
trustee, Gough, nearly absorb the whole trust fund, and not in-
tending, at this time, to pronounce an opinion in reference to
them, I cannot well understand how the trustee of this court,
who was certainly not required to complicate himself with such
transactions, but whose duties were plain and simple, shall be
permitted, by passing beyond the line of his duty, to exonerate
himself from those obligations which the decree appointing him
imposed upon him.

The court is not disposed to look with favor upon the appro-
priation by its trustee, of the proceeds of sales of property made
under its decrees, without its previous authority, and such ap-
propriations have been condemned upon former occasions. Mac-
kubin vs. Brown, 1 Bland, 410; Iglehart vs. Armiger, ib., 519.

And, more especially, will such conduct be viewed with
jealousy, when married women and children are concerned,
and the property or fund raised by the sale, is subject to mar-
riage settlements, designed for the support of families. Pay-
ments made under such circumstances, cannot be offered as an
excuse for not doing that which the decree plainly directed to
be done. But, it is said, that Costigan was, under the marriage
Settlement, entitled to the usufruct of this property for life; and,
therefore, to that extent, the appropriation was strictly within
the terms of the trust. Conceding that Costigan was so entitled,
it by no means follows, that the trustee, Gough, was justifiable
"in making the applications. He was not the trustee of Costi-
gan and wife, but the trustee of this court, authorized to sell the
property and bring the avails in, to be disposed of under the di-
rection of the Chancellor; and it would be strange if he could
rid himself of this duty, by assuming a character to which he