^50 TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN.

son, who is the guardian of the infant defendants William and
Caroline) had also paid to the plaintiff Anna Maria, her annuity
for one year, under the will of her father. But, that those defen-
dants have failed and refused to pay any more of the annuity to
her, either before, or since her intermarriage; and that the defen-
dant Thomas Iglehart having died since the filing of the bill, and
administration de bonis non having been granted to John Iglehart,
he had been summoned as a defendant, and the suit had been
revived against him accordingly.

Upon these facts the plaintiffs have prayed for an account; that
the land might be sold; and that the proceeds thereof might be
applied to the payment of their annuity with costs, and the balance
so invested as to stand as an available fund to meet future instal-
ments of said annuity; or, that such other relief might be given to
them as to the court might seem meet.

It will be seen by adverting to the will of William Duncan
deceased, that he has expressly declared, that the annuity should
be paid out of the rents and profits of the estate; thus unequivo-
cally shewing it to have been his intention, that it should be
charged altogether and exclusively upon that estate; and that his
personalty should be in no way liable (e)—consequently, it could
not have been necessary for the plaintiffs to say any thing of the
deceased's personal estate; or to have made his executrix or
administrator a party to this suit.

The subject claimed by these plaintiffs is an annuity charged
upon, and payable out of the rents and profits of a certain real
estate; which real estate, so charged, was devised to these infant
defendants William and Caroline, These facts are sufficiently
stated in the bill, and are more fully shewn by the last will of the
testator, which is exhibited as a part of it. The bill further states,
that after the death of the testator, Deborah, who was the mother of
the infant defendants William and Caroline, paid the plaintiff Anna
Maria one year's annuity; and that the defendant Robinson, who
is their guardian, also paid the plaintiff Anna Maria one year's
annuity, under her father's will. Here then is a sufficient state's
ment of the fact, that these infant defendants, by their mother, and
afterwards by their legal guardian, took the real estate so devised
to them; and actually, in consequence thereof, paid a part of the
annuity so charged upon it.

(e) Elliot v. Hancock, 2 Vern. 143; Attorney-General v.. Downing, Amb, 571.