362 HIGH COITRT OF CHANCERY.

that the business of the trust, prior to the appointment of the
defendant, in 1836, was not to be inquired into. Certainly, if
the defendant had accounted with, and paid to his principals,
the original trustees, all the money which came to his hands as
agent, he would not be responsible to these plaintiffs, and,
therefore, when he alone is brought before the court, and those
trustees, or they being dead, their personal representatives, are
not made parties, he might very naturally assume that the sub-
jects to be investigated in the cause would be confined to his
acts as trustee, and not to acts performed in the capacity of
agent for others, who, or whose representatives, were not
brought before the court. To those original trustees the de-
fendant was certainly per directum, liable, and though as this
case now stands, it may be that the cestique trusts are entitled
to proceed directly against the defendant in respect of his trans-
actions as agent, (a point not now meant to be decided,) yet
certainly when the original trustees, or those who now repre-
sent them, are not made parties, the bill if it meant to call the
defendant to account in the double capacity of agent and trus-
tee, should do so in terms free from ambiguity or equivocation.
This bill, in my judgment, does not do so. It calls upon the
defendant for a detailed account of the business of the trust, but
does not call upon him for an account of the business of the
trust and agency, for the failure to render which the exception
is taken.

The bill, it is true, speaks of both the trust and the agency,
and very properly distinguishes between them; but the inter-
rogating part seems to be confined to a call for information,
and an account with regard to the trust, and the defendant
might very readily and naturally have supposed that the only
relief sought against him was in his character as trustee; and
it may have been from that impression that he submitted to
answer, instead of demurring. If by joining these two matters
the bill would have been multifarious, and the defendant by the
ambiguous manner in which they are presented, has been in-
duced to forego that mode of defence, and must now give full
and explicit answers to what was not fully and explicitly stat-