REBECCA OWINGS' CASE.

tection; or rather it would amount to an absolute frustration of the
good intentions of her parents. The relief must, therefore, be so
conducted as to accomplish the object in view; that is, the main-
tenance of Rebecca. This cannot be done without the instrumen-
tality of a trustee, who may be charged with the receipt and appli
cation of the fund that has been appropriated for that purpose.
One of her provident parents has made a selection of trustees for
her; which, so far, seems to be conceded to have been a judicious
one. I shall, therefore, confirm and act upon it. Not because I
recognise the least right in the late Deborah Owings to appoint a
trustee or guardian of the person or property of her daughter; but,
because I believe it to be my official duty to protect persons in the
condition in which I find Rebecca; and to do so effectually, I must
appoint and use a trustee or agent. And Cromwell and wife hav-
ing been recommended by one of the parents of Rebecca, (for so I
consider what is said in the will of the late Deborah,) as suitable
trustees; and they having assumed that character; with which,
upon a proper application I might have clothed them; I shall^ow
sanction and confirm it to them;—upon the ground that this court
always retrospectively sustains and ratifies that which has been
usefully and fairly done; and which it would have ordered to be
done. I shall require John Cromwell to give bond for the faithful
application of the money I shall decree to Rebecca, and order to be
placed in his hands for her use.(h) And I shall accordingly regard
this suit as having been instituted by Rebecca Owings, together
with John Cromwell and Urath his wife as trustees of Rebecca, and
thus pass over this first difficulty, as to the proper parties.

The next question is, what is the nature of the bequest of the
late Samuel Owings to his daughter Rebecca ? The defendant seems
to have a notion, that his father gave him the right to take charge
of the person of his sister, and to maintain her as he thought pro-
per. But the devise conveys no such idea; and if it did, it is
clear, that although a father may appoint a guardian of his infant
children; yet he cannot dispose of the custody of his adult chil-
dren whether of sound mind or non compos mentis, in any way
whatever, (i) It is evident, however, that the testator had no
reference to the custody or the place of residence of his daughter;
his expressions show, that his thoughts were directed exclusively
to her maintenance, in whatever place she might dwell. And that

(£) Bird v. Lefevre, 4 Bro. C. C. 100.—(t) Exporte Ludlowt 2 P. Will. 635.