JONES v. STOCKETT. 423

decree of the 5th of November, had been consolidated with this case.
1. Because, in the account filed on the 15th of November, 1827,
the expenditures and commissions of the said Stockett, were allow-
ed out of the principal sums received by him; whereas, they ought
to have been allowed out of the interest due on his mortgage annu-
ally. 2. Because, in the second account, filed on the 4th Decem-
ber, Stockett was charged with simple interest on his mortgage;
whereas, the interest being payable annually, ought to have been
paid in the discharge of the annuity due to Jones and wife; or,
otherwise laid out for the benefit of the estate, which not having
been done, compound interest ought to be charged.

28th January, 1830—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case, as con-
solidated, standing ready for hearing, and having been submitted
on the notes of the solicitors of the parties, the proceedings were
read and considered.

The original plaintiffs Jones and wife, seem to have taken some
very erroneous views of their case, which it may be well here to
notice, lest improper inferences should otherwise be deduced from
them. They have roundly affirmed, that they alone were interested
in the investment of this legacy of $7,000.

This positive and comprehensive allegation, to say the least of
it, could only have proceeded from inattention to the express lan-
guage of the will under which they claim; by which, it unequivo-
cally appears, that although the testator says, I give to my niece
Ann Shipley, the sum of $7,000; yet he does so, upon the express
condition, that no more than 'the annual interest thereof, shall be
paid to her yearly during her natural life.' By which the testator,
in this peculiar and mixed disposition of that amount of his estate,
in effect, gave her nothing more than a legacy in nature of an an-
nuity, constituted of only such profits as might be safely derived
from $7,000 so disposed of. (k) And consequently the plaintiff
Samuel Jones, became entitled only, in right of his wife, to that
indefinite annuity, during her life. But the testator directs, that,
after her death, the $7,000 shall go to her lawful issue; and there-
fore, her children by Jones and by any other husband stand alike
and next in remainder; and on her leaving no lawful issue, to go
over to others. Therefore, so far from the plaintiffs Jones and wife
being alone interested in the investment, those in remainder have,
by much, the largest interest in the safe disposition of,this sum;
so that the whole principal may reach them undiminished after the

(k) Franks v. Noble, 12 Ves. 490.