
    KINGSBURY v. PHELPS’S ADMINISTRATOR.
    Pledge — interest of the pledge — statute of limitations as to parties.
    Where notes and other dioses in action have been given to a person to in-, demnify him for Raving gone security for the pledger, with an agreement they should be the property of the security if be was made liable, the security does not hold the notes absolutely, but as indemnity, and is liable to-account.
    The equity of the statute of limitations does not apply to trust property, between the cestui que trust and the trustes.
    In Chancery. The complainant claims that one G. Pease placed in Phelps’s hands securities to a large amount, to indemnify him for going security for him for $2,300, and agreed that if he, Phelps, was-made liable, the notes, &c., should be his, but if not made liable, that he should account for them. The interest of Pease in the agreement is now in the complainant, and he now calls for an account.
    The answer of the defendant admits the surety, and the delivery of the notes, as set forth, but asserts ignorance of the assignment to 371] *the complainant, and claims the obligations to be his own property, as the intestate had paid sundry sums for Pease; it also insists that the demand is a stale one.
    
      Webb and P. Hitchcock for the complainants.
    
      Newton and Perkins for the defendants.
   BY THE COURT.

It appears that sundry demands were given to Phelps, to indemnify him for going security, under an agreement, that if Phelps had to pay, the demands should be his own.

It is well settled that the property in a pledge for indemnity is not changed absolutely by the pledge. In such cases as in mortgages, the pledgee or mortgagee is held subject to account, whatever may be the form of the contract. Such is the apparent right of the complainant here.

It is said the claim is a stale one, and is within the equity of the statute of limitations. That statute does not apply between a trustee and a cesPui que tnost, which is the case before us. The case is one of trust propertyin thehands of the defendant’s intestate, andseems a proper one for an account before a master, where the claims can be examined; and it is referred to a master for account.  