
    Mortimer v. Moffatt and Wife.
    February Term, 1810.
    Life Tenant of Personal Chattels — Security for Return. —Though it is a matter of course for a remainder-man of personal chattels to file a bill against tenant for life, for an account and inventory of the property, yet the Court will not rule the tenant for life to give security to have the property forthcoming at his death, unless there appear some danger of its being wasted, or put out of the way.
    The defendants had recovered a judgment at law against the plaintiff for some negroes, the use of whom was devised to the defendant’s wife for life, and then to the plaintiff; and the bill was filed for an injunction, which was granted, to inhibit the defendants from getting possession of the negroes, until they gave security for their forthcoming at the death of the wife, upon this ground, that her husband, having failed, as a merchant, might put the negroes beyond the plaintiff’s control. Upon the coming in of the answer, although it denied that allegation, and of which there was no proof, the court refused to dissolve the injunction; as both parties had become interested in the continuance thereof; and directed an account of the profits since the verdict, which account was reported; and the cause now came on for a final hearing.
    
      
      Life Tenant of Personal Chattels — Security for Return. — A life tenant of personal chattels cannot be required to give security for the return of the property upon the termination of the life-estate, unless those in remainder or reversion can assign special reasons for requiring security, such as danger of its being wasted or put out of the way. See foot-note to Frazer v. Bevill, 11 Gratt. 9, and the principal case cited in Houser v. Ruffiner, 18 W. Va. 252, 253.
      Remainderman of Personal Property — Right to Require Security from Executor. — As to the right of the remainderman of personal property to require an executor to give bond, where such personal property is left by the testator in the control of the executor, and the will directs that no bond shall be required of the executor, see the principal case cited in Amiss v. Williamson. 17 W. Va. 679.
    
   *By the Chancellor.

Though it is a matter of course for one in remainder of chattels, to file a bill for an account, and an inventory of the property, that it may be certainly known ; yet the court will not rule the tenant for life to give security, unless there appears to be some danger of wasting or putting the property out of the waj'. In this case that danger does not appear: the report, however, which contains an account of the property, may be confirmed, as a beneficial one to both sides; since the plaintiff was properly admitted into court; and the plaintiff may be decreed to pay the sum reported against him; but the defendants will be allowed to hold the negroes and their increase, until the death of the wife, when they are to be delivered to the plaintiff: and so it was decreed accordingly.  