442 TILLY v. TILLY.

character. It is clear, that the trustee was to hold, at all events,
for the use of the testator's daughter, Elizabeth Tilly, during her
life; but whether any or what interest, during the same time,
vested in her children seems doubtful. It is certain, however,
that as tenant for life, she was constituted the pernor of the profits
of the estate charged, either for her own exclusive use, or for her
own benefit, and also for the maintenance of her children. During
her life, therefore, it could only be the duty of the trustee to hold
the legal estate for the purpose of protecting the right thus given
to her. But on her death, a new and different interest vested in her
infant children. After her death, the trustee is directed to hold
Ho and for the maintenance of her children, until they should arrive
at twenty-one years of age.'

Where an estate is given to a trustee to hold for the use of an
adult of sound mind, for life or any given period of time, the object
of the donation may be most beneficially obtained by considering
the donee as the actual pernor of the profits; and merely allowing
him to enter upon the estate, and gather for himself all the pro-
ducts and benefits he can obtain. But where such a donation is
made to infants or lunatics, for their maintenance, from the very
nature of the gift, it must be deemed to have been the intention of
the donor, that the actual pernancy of the profits should be com-
mitted to other hands for the benefit of the cestui que use; be-
cause otherwise, the express purpose of the bounty might fail, or
become altogether nugatory.

Therefore, I hold it to have been the intention of this testator,
that his daughter Elizabeth, should be allowed herself, to take the
profits of the estate during her life, in any way she might deem
most advantageous; and, that after her death, the profits should
be collected by the trustee himself, and applied to the maintenance
of her infant children.

The testator has made no distinction as to the nature and qua-
lity of the maintenance to be given to any of the infants; and
consequently, they must be all placed upon the same footing, and
be allowed to come in equally, share and share alike. And as it
is a gift for maintenance only, it is manifest, that it must cease as
well by the death, as by the full age of each one of them, although
the testator is silent as to a termination of the right by death.
Hence, supposing the estate to be equally productive each year,
during the whole time this incumbrance continued, it is evident,
that the fund thus appropriated for the maintenance of these infants,