24 FBDEBAL REPORTER. �6. Although the defendant's testator aeted withont any other real purpose, as it seems, than to do what he thouglit for the best interest of his -ward, yet he took the risk of investing the funds in a manner net allo-wed by law, and he must therefore make good the amount receiveJ, with interest and annual rests. King v. Talhot, 40 N. Y. 76. The fact that down to the time of the war there had b'3en no depreciation in fact is immaterial. The ward may n )w elect to reject the inveat- ments altogether. The guardian is to be-allowed all payments made by him for the support and education of the infants, as the same appear on his account rendered, which are admitted to be in that respect correct. �7. The defendant's testator received for his wards from time to time a certain proportionate part of the dividends on stock of the Mechanics' Bank, a Georgia corporation. The plain- tifï insists that the defendant'a testator should be charged with the infants' proportionate partof the value of this stock. The evidence is not sufficient to show what interest, if any, the infants had in this stock, or whether the defendant's tes- tor could, by appropriate proceedings in the courts of Geor- gia for ancillary letters of guardianship, or otherwise, have obtained possession as guardian of this interest. If he could have done so it seems that it would have been his duty to do it {Schultz V. Pulver, 11 Wend. 361 ;) but this question will more properly arise when an account shall have been taken and the facts are all before the court. �Decrees for an account in the original Buits, and dismissing the bills in the cross-suits, with costs. ���Sawybe V, HORN. (Cireuit Court, D. Maryland. January 17, 18S0.) �Teade-Makk— î'iîAUD — Injunction. — A court of equity will restrain the fraudaient imitation of a package and label, although they do not tet h- nically constitute a trade-mark, where the public are thereby misled into purchaaing the goods of the imitator as those of the original manu- facturer. ��� �
