
    Thomas B. Thomas, and Edward T. Heriot, Trustees of Edward G. Thomas, and Emily, his Wife v. Higham & Fife, and Others.
    A pecuniary legacy, of unascertained amount, is sufficiently described in a marriage settlement, as “ a legacy,” adding the names of the testator, and legatee; and no additional schedule is necessary to give validity to the settlement, under the act of 1792. vide 1 Faust, 209.
    The trustees of a marriage settlement, will be presumed to have renounced their trust, from their having paid over trust moneys to trustees, substituted by order of Court, although it does not appear, that they were parties to the order of substitution, vide Act of 1796,2 Faust, 96.
    On appeal from the decree of De Saussure, Chancellor, at Georgetown, February, 1830.
    King, for the motion.
    Dunkin, contra.
    
   Johnson, J.

'We concur in opinion with the Chancellor in this case. It was impossible to have described the. thing settled, a le. gacy, otherwise than as it is described in the settlement. A schedule, therefore, would have been useless ; and, by the termh of the act, one is necessary, only when the property settled is not specifi. cally described in the deed.

Martha Cannon, and Thomas Doughty, who were the trustees by the settlement, were also executrix and executor of the testator, Daniel Cannon, and were consequently in possession of the legacy; and as they paid it over to the substituted trustees, the necessary inference is, that they had formally renounced, and assented to the substitution. The substituted trustees, must, therefore, be regarded as legally invested with the estate, and authority, of the original trustees.

The motion to reverse the Chancellor’s decree, is dismissed.

O’Neall, J., and Harper, J., concurred.

Decree affirmed.  