JONES v. STOCKETT. 425

It has been long, and well settled, that in all cases where
property has been vested in a trustee; or placed in his hands; or
put under his control for the purpose of securing it for the benefit
of any one; or to insure its proper application in any legal way as
prescribed by the owner, that although such trustee may, in almost
all cases, if he thinks proper, take upon himself the risk of proper-
ly executing the trust without assistance from any quarter; yet he is
not absolutely bound to do so. He may in all cases where the
nature of the trust is governed by principles of equity, as most
commonly happens, ask the direction of a Court of Chancery; and
act under the indemnity of its decree; not because such a court is,
in itself, considered as a proper or suitable agent for the mere safe-
keeping, or management of any property; but because where pro-
perty has been put into a particular course, allowed and regulated
only by principles of equity, it is fit and proper, that all who have
a beneficial vested interest in it; as well as the agent to whose
management it has been confided, should have an opportunity of
coming before a tribunal whose peculiar province it is to apply
such principles; and have such property so regulated; as well that
those who may be then, or thereafter beneficially interested, may
sustain no loss, as that the trustee may fall into no mistakes, nor
be subjected to any unreasonable responsibility in cases, where the
rules of equity, by which his administration must be governed,
are complex and of difficult application. And therefore it is, that
in all such cases, where a trustee comes before a court of equity,
as a plaintiff, or is brought before it as a defendant, and declines
to execute the trust without the direction and indemnity of the
court, he is held to be so entirely justifiable in thus seeking its
protection, that he is never charged with interest or costs; and
that all such losses and expenses are directed to be borne by the
particular trust fund in regard to which the direction has been
required. (1)

Now in the case under consideration, the plaintiffs Jones and
wife, had complained, that these trustees had suffered the trust
fund to remain in their hands unproductive; and one of the trustees,
for they cannot act separately, (m) came in at once, submitted to,

(0 Leech v. Leech, 1 Ch. Ca. 249; Brown v. Litton, 1 P. Will. 140; Trafford v.
Boehm, 3 Atk. 448; Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Bro. C. C. 183; Hancom v. Alien, 2
Dick. 498; Brown v. Yeale, 7 Ves. 50, note; Curteis v. Candler, 6 Mad. 123; David
v. Frowd, 7 Cond. Cha. Rep. 8.—(m) Nicolson v. Wordsworth, 2 Swan. 370; 2
Fonb. 181.