412 JONES v. STOCKETT.

the trust fund, when deposited, might be paid to the petitioner
Samuel, on his giving bond with approved surety.

21st September, 1825.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The petition of
Samuel Jones of Joshua, and Ann his wife, has been read and con-
sidered. It was my intention, by the order of the 31st of August
last, to place the money constituting the legacy to the plaintiff Ann,
at once in perfect security, and to give her time to be heard as to
the mode of investment, so far as the testator had allowed of any
range of discretion in that respect. From the language of the will,
it certainly could not have been the intention of the testator that
the legacy he thus gave to his niece should be put into the hands
of her husband, upon any terms whatever. But apart from that
manifest intention, where the profits only of a legacy are given, as
in this instance, to a woman for life, and the principal in remainder
to her children, it might evidently be attended with the most per-
nicious and ruinous consequences to take the principal, given to
the children in remainder, from the hands of the trustees, and place
it in the hands of their father. His influence might prevent them
from exacting from him their just right during his life; and on his
death insolvent, they might feel a great repugnance to making his
securities answer for the loss they had sustained by reason of his
misfortunes, (a) The good feelings between parent and child, so
far from being put in jeopardy, should be sustained and cherished.(6)
Therefore, even if this money might be put out upon mere personal
security, I should deem it improper to place it upon such security,
in the hands of the father of those who are to take in remainder (c)
The testator has, however, apparently aware of the ill conse-
quences of such a disposition of the fund, expressly declared it to
be his design, that the trustees should retain in their hands the
principal sum of $7,000, and put the same out on interest on good
security, for the purposes aforesaid.

But, as the annual and punctual payment of the interest payable
to Ann, must depend in a great degree upon the form of the invest-
ment, I was unwilling to make the selection until the plaintiffs had
been heard. The meaning of the phrase c good security,' used by
the testator, must be taken in connexion with that indefinite, and
perhaps great length of time, during which it is very evident he

(a) Carpenter v. Heriot, 1 Eden, 341; Wycherley v. Wycherley, 2 Eden, 180,—
(d) Ex parte Hopkins, 3 P. Will. 155; Lempster v. Pomfret, Amb. 154; Lyons v.
Blenkin, 4 Cond. Cha, Rep. 115.—(c) Langston v. Olivant, Cooper's Rep. 33.