432 JONES v. STOCKETT.

legatee, has had given to him an estate in the nature of an annuity
for life, amounting to no more than $250 per annum; from which
alont, it is true, that he may be able to obtain a much better edu-
cation than his father can give him; yet his expectations in life,
from such an estate, cannot be presumed to rise so far above those
to which he might look as a member of his father's family, as to
suggest the propriety of his being brought up with higher hopes,
much less to justify any suppression of his father's authority over
him. Nevertheless, from the terms of this bequest, which, beyond
a specified expenditure, is to accumulate until the legatee attains
his full age, as well as from the principles of equity by which this
case must be governed, if the father refuses to permit these trustees
to have the management of his maintenance and education, I can
order nothing to be paid to him for those or any other purposes, (b)
And as the father has never, in any way, consented to part with
his son, in consideration of his being maintained and educated, as
directed by the testator, I cannot, on that ground, interfere with the
connexion between him and his child. But to whatever school he
may be permitted to go, by his father, the trustees will be ordered
to pay all expenses, to the extent of the annual income of his
legacy, including maintenance for that purpose, if the school should
be deemed sufficient, and happens to be too distant for him to re-
side with his father.

There seems to have been an understanding between these trus-
tees and the father of Larkin, the legatee, that he was, at all events,
to be maintained and educated by them; and, under that impres-
sion, they have made some advances to the father on that account.
I shall, therefore, on the ground of allowing that to stand which
appears to have been well intended, and might have been ordered,
affirm the auditor's report, in this respect, awarding so much, as
therein stated, to be paid to the father.

Trustees are never charged, in any way, but on the ground of
some fault or neglect. Here no misconduct can be imputed to
these trustees; and, therefore, the plaintiff Larkin Shipley's excep-
tions to the auditor's report must be over-ruled.

Whereupon it is Decreed, that the trustees Richard G. Stockett
and Henry Wayman without delay invest the residue of the amount
of the legacy given to the said Ann Jones in such stocks or way

(6) Jervoise v. Silk, Cooper's Rep. 52; Haley v. Bannister, 4 Mad. 275; Welles-
ley v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep, 14.