
    Timothy White versus Paul Jenkins and Charles Turner and Another, Trustees.
    Where money was paid to certain trustees, to be by them appropriated, at their discretion, for the maintenance and support of a son of the donor; and if he should not live to expend the same in his necessary support, then to be paid over to the other children and grandchildren of the donor; it was holden that the trustees were not liable, as such, to the creditors of the son.
    Mr. Turner, in answer to the usual interrogatory, stated that, on the 13th of September, 1811, Daniel Jenkins, father of the defendant, executed the following instrument in writing, viz.—“ In consider ation of the love and good will I bear to my son Paul Jenkins, I hereby promise to pay out of my estate, at my decease, 500 dollars to»Charles Turner and Jesse Dunbar, to be held by them as my trustees; they to give bond to the judge of probate for the county of Plymouth, to appropriate the same, at their discretion, for the maintenance and support of my said son Paul; and if he should not live to expend the same for his necessary support, my trustees shall divide the remainder among my children and grandchildren according to their discretion.” Upon the decease of the said Daniel, the trustees named received the said sum; a part of which had been applied, at the discretion of the trustees, for the necessary support of the defendant; and there remained in their hands 415 dollars, 90 cents, of the said sum, including interest: And the question upon these facts was, whether the said Turner and Dunbar were liable to be charged in this action, as trustees of the defendant.
    * Winslow, for the plaintiff.
    This Court has repeatedly [ * 63 ] decided that a person summoned as trustee must be charged, unless on his examination he discharges himself . It will not escape the observation of the Court, that the persons summoned are not the executors of the defendant’s father. The reasoning of the Court in the case of Barnes vs. Treat & Tr. 
       is confined to the case of executors and administrators. The plaintiff’s demand in this case, being for the board of the defendant, gives him a peculiar claim on this fund.
    
      
       2 Mass. Rep. 503, Webster vs. Gage & Tr. —4 Mass. Rep. 206, Sebor vs. Arm strong & Tr.
      
    
    
      
       7 Mass. Rep. 271.
    
   Per Curiam.

The respondents cannot be considered as the trustees of the principal defendant; because they are in no view indebted, and t'.ie defendant can maintain no action for the sum committed in trust to them. They are to appropriate the sum of 500 dollars to the support of the defendant, at their discretion, during his life, and afterwards to distribute it among the other children of the donor. There may be good reasons for paying nothing to the defendant; and it is in every event entirely at the discretion of the respondents, when and how much they shall pay him. Further, it would be im possible to ascertain for how great a sum the respondents should be charged, if they were held to be chargeable in this suit. Upon the ground, that there is no absolute right in Paul Jenkins to any part of the sum, and that he can maintain no action against the respond ants, we discharge them.  