CONTEE v. DAWSON. 291

other children of the late Margaret R. Clerklee ever, in any form,

requested or approved of the transfer made by the trustee William
Dawson; or that they were then of an age to mislead him in the
execution of his trust, or to practise a fraud upon him in any way
whatever. I am therefore of opinion, that the sale of the English
stocks, in which this legacy had been vested, as regards all these
daughters, except Ann Russell Contee, never was required to be
made, and has not been sanctioned, in any manner whatever, by
these cestui que trusts; and that the trustee must be held liable for
all the consequences of that unwarrantable act

Hence, supposing it to have been proved, that the proceeds of
the English stocks in which this legacy had been invested, had
been brought to Maryland, and, in great part, invested in the stock
of the City Bank of Baltimore, and lost by the insolvency of that
institution; and other parts loaned on a mortgage of real estate,
as is alleged, still the trustee Dawson, and his executrix the defen-
dant Eleanor Dawson, must be held liable. But there is, in fact,
no satisfactory proof, that any part of the proceeds of the sale of
the English stocks were actually invested in the stock of the City
Bank of Baltimore.

The defendant Eleanor Dawson has attempted to take shelter
under another defence. Ann Russell, by the codicil to her will, has
declared, in effect, as it is said, that if Margaret R. Clerklee con-
tests Eleanor Dawson's right to a share of certain estates, that then
this legacy shall go to Eleanor Dawson. Upon which it is urged,
that it has not been shewn, that Eleanor Dawson has received her
share of the estates referred to in the codicil.

But I am of opinion, that it was the intention and meaning of
this testatrix by that codicil merely to declare, that Eleanor Daw-
son should not be hindered, obstructed, or impeded in obtaining
the benefit of the estates referred to, by any positive or active in-
terference of the legatee Margaret R. Clerklee; and not that Mar-
garet R. Clerklee should actually aid and assist Eleanor Dawson in
obtaining her rights, and see that she received her full share of
those estates. And consequently, that it lays upon the defendant
Eleanor Dawson to prove, that her right has, in fact, been con-
; and that she has been hindered and prevented by Marga-
ret R. Clerklee from obtaining her full share of the estates spoken
of in the codicil. So far, however, from there being any proof of
that kind, the testimony is full and conclusive, to the extent it
goes, that she has met with no impediments whatever; but on the