206 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.

some other reasonable way, at his discretion; or that he was re-
quired to apply them to the maintenance or education of the cestui
que trust; and it must also appear, that he not only failed to do so,
but applied the money to his own use, or put it to hazard in a man-
ner in which he had, or might have derived a profit from it. That
the trustee was required to invest, or make a beneficial application
of the money may be shewn by the terms in which the trust was
created. But, whether he has applied it to his own use or not,
must be shewn by proof. Whether the pecuniary ability of the
trustee was such as to enable him to pay at any time, when called
on, is a matter of no consequence, as regards the question of inte-
rest. The making of a deposite of the money at a bank as his own;
or making purchases with it; or using it in the course of his trade,
has been deemed sufficient evidence of his deriving such a profit
from it as to authorize the court to charge him with interest upon
each annual amount of interest, (n)

In the case under consideration, it very satisfactorily appears to
have been the duty of the defendant John Diffenderffer to have ap-
plied the rents and profits, received by him, for the benefit of all the
devisees of the late Charles Rogers; and that, instead of doing so,
he deposited them, as received, in bank as his own, drew them
out, made purchases, and used them for his own use and benefit
exclusively. What advantages he derived from those rents and
profits, thus mingled with his own money, from the time of their
being deposited in bank, has not been shewn; but such a manage-
ment must have been very beneficial to himself, and greatly in-
jurious to the devisees. Such a course of conduct by any one,
standing as this defendant John Diffenderffer did, bound to make
the funds received by him productive, or constantly useful to those
entitled to them, cannot be tolerated by this court. I am therefore,
of opinion, that he has been correctly charged with interest on the
whole amount including principal and interest found to be in his
hands at each rest.

The next inquiry is as to the allowances which should be made
to the defendant John Diffenderffer. In England, trustees are
never allowed anything as a compensation for their trouble; (o)
here it is otherwise; executors, and all persons, standing in the

(n) Newton v. Bennet, 1 Bro. C. C. 359; Rocke v. Hart, 11 Ves. 59; Raphael v.
Boehm, 11 Ves. 92,8. C. 18, Ves. 408 & 591; Tebbs v. Carpenter, 1 Mad. Rep. 290;
Attorney-General v. Solly, 2 Cond. Chan. Rep. 528; Ringgold v. Ringgold, 1 H.
& G. 12.—(o) Sykes v. Hastings, 11 Ves. 363.