Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/92

 UNITED STATES V. GILLESPIE. 77 �il carelal consideration we are of the opinion that they must be over- ruled. They seem to have been iounded upon a mistaken apprehen- sion of the nature, character, and object of the bill of complaint. It is net a suit for a legacy or bequest, and hence the several statutes quoted, and the reasons for a stay of proceedings against executors in suits of that sort, have no application. The theory of the bill is that there is an estate in the course of administration in one of the courts of the state of New Jersey which the complainant desires to have administered here; that the defendants are the executors and trustees of the estate, and have the trust fund in their hands, to be disposed of according to the provisions of the will; that the complain- ant, as cestui que trust, is entitled to have the will construed by this court, and to have the directions of the court, to the executors and trustees, in regard to the proper methodof executing the trust;' andj as auxiliary to this, may require an account in order to aseertain what is the residue of the estate available for the purposes of the trust. The general jurisdiction of courts of chaneery over questions of this kind, in the administration of estates, is undoubted, and such jurisdiction must be exercised by this court, sitting in equity, when the proper parties appear to invoke it. Entertaining this view it is not necessary to follow the counsel in their leamed discussion of questions which are not involved in the subject-matter of the bill of complaint. But, perhaps, tre ought to advert to the apprehensions expressed on the argument that the mere allowance of the suit might be construed into a reflection upon the conduct of the defendants. We do not so regard it. We find nothing in the bill suggesting unfaithfulness on their part, and look upon the proceeding as a request by the complainant that the court should aid the trustees in the dis- charge of their delicate and responsible duties, and should require only the exercise of such reasonable diligence as the condition of the estate and the circumstances of the case demand. With what speed they should be ordered to proeeed is under the control of the court, to be determined on the answer, and not on the pleas ; and it ought not to be assumed in advance that the court will make any order which will unreasonably subject the defendants to either hazard, loss, or practical inconvenience. �The pleas should be overruled, and it is ordered accordingly. ��� �