434 JONES v. STOCKETT.

proceeds of the property of the said legatees, which have or may
come to their hands,

On the 22d of February, 1830, the trustee Wayman, by way of
report, brought into court the vouchers of three claims which he
had held for the estate and legatees of his testator; and declining
to give bond, as required by the decree of the 5th of November,
1829, said, that in conformity, as he believed, to the wishes of
Jones and wife, recommended in his place Joshua Jones, of Frede-
rick county. And Jones and wife, by their petition, filed on the
9th of March following, expressed their assent to the resignation
of the trustee Wayman; and proposed, with the approbation of
the court, that Joshua Jones, of Frederick county, should be ap-
pointed in his place. To which proposition the solicitor of the
trustee Stockett, and of Larkin Shipley, the legatee, by their note
in writing, expressed their consent. Upon which the matter was
submitted.

20th March, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The petitioner is
Samuel Jones of Joshua, that is, as it would seem, the son of this
Joshua Jones of Frederick. If that be the case, then it appears,
that after having failed to have himself appointed trustee of this
legacy of $7,000, and thus directly getting it into his own hands, he
now, indirectly, seeks to attain the same object, by having it placed
in the hands of his father. In answer to such movements I would
say, in the language of one of England's most distinguished Chan-
cellors, Lord Nottingham, 'I like not that a man should be am-
bitious of a trust when he can get nothing but trouble by it;' (c)
and therefore declare, without any reflection on this Joshua Jones
of Frederick, that he shall not, as trustee, meddle with this trust.
It is true, that this court may, for just cause, remove a trustee
and appoint another in his place; as where the trustee had become,
by reason of age or infirmity, unable to attend to his duties; (d)
or where feme sole trustee had married a foreigner; for, although
a feme covert is not incompetent to officiate as a trustee, yet there
is much inconvenience in her doing so, and especially when she
may, as the wife of a foreigner, be taken out of the state; (e) or
where the trustee had gone abroad to reside; (/) or had ab-
sconded on a charge of forgery; (g) or had been guilty of a breach

(c) Uvedale v. Ettrick, 2 Cha. Ca. 131.—(d) Hibbard v. Lambe, Amb. 309; Bennet
v. Honywood, Amb. 710.—(e) Lake v. De Lambert, 4 Ves. 593 —(f) Buchanan v.
Hamilton, 5 Ves. 722.—(g) Millard v. Eyre, 2 Ves. jun. 94.