410 JONES v. STOCKETT,

Shipley, my niece, shall be deemed and taken as full satisfaction
for any claims against me that may arise for becoming one of the
securities on the administration of her father's estate.'

And again, after making some other dispositions of his property,
he says, 'I give and devise all the rest and residue of my estate,
both real and personal, (subject, nevertheless, to the control, cus-
tody, and possession of my trustees, as hereafter described,) to my
nephew Larkin Shipley, the son of my brother John, for and during
the term of his natural life, and no longer; and if he should depart
this life without issue of his body, lawfully begotten, then to be equally
divided among his brothers and sisters; but if he should have law-
ful issue of his body at the time of his death, then, to such issue,
share and share alike. I also authorize and direct that my said
trustees shall have and retain the sole possession and custody of the
said estate so given, as aforesaid, to my said nephew Larkin^ for
the purpose of educating him", and are to rent out the real estate,
and put out the money on interest to the best advantage; pay
away the yearly proceeds, after his arrival at age, to him; but to
retain a control over the principal till the objects of this bequest
and devise are fully complied with. Item.—I nominate and ap-
point Richard G. Stockett and Henry Wayman, and the survivor of
them, whole and sole trustees and executors of this, my last will
and testament, with full power for either of them to act in case of
the death of the other, to carry into full execution all the matters
and things aforesaid.'

Soon after which, Larkin Shipley died, and his will was, on the
18th of April, 1822, proved before the Orphans Court of Anne
Arundel County, and letters testamentary thereupon granted to the
two executors therein named, who took upon themselves the exe-
cution of the trust therein mentioned. The bill further states that
the legatee and plaintiff Ann had, since the death of the testator,
intermarried with the plaintiff Samuel; that the defendants, as
trustees, had paid a part of the interest on the plaintiff Ann's lega-
cy to her before her marriage, and a small sum since that time; but
not the whole of what was due; and no provision had been made
for the punctual payment of the said interest, whereby she has sus-
tained considerable inconvenience; that the defendant had not put
out the said sum of $7,000, or any part of it, at interest on good
security; but that the same remained in their hands, or in the
hands of one of them, which neglect and omission were contrary
to the directions of the will, and put at great hazard the principal