I 42·_ rmnmsu. asronrmn.
of the donor.  The proof shows that at the time these securities were
sent to Bishop Ireland, they were all so indorsed and transferred as to
enable him, ifhe had chosen to do so, to exercise absolute control and
ownership over them. Some of the securities, however, as the proof
shows, were in such a condition that they needed constant attention.
Bishop Ireland had reluctantly accepted the sole trust and care of
I these securities, and undoubtedly expected that during the life of
Ke_egan he would have, the benefit of Keegan’s experience and ability
I in caring for, reinvesting, and otherwise looking after the property.
It is hardly to be supposed, from what the testimony discloses in 1·e-
gard to this matter, that Keegan, with his habits and his methods of I _
business, expected or intended to lose all interest in the property the
moment he had made such change asto vest the legal title in Bishop
Ireland, his trustee. His affection for his child, which seems to have
continued warm. and active to the last, would alone have prompted
— him totake a continued interest_ in the management of his estate.
It is, therefore, only natural, it seems to me, that he should have con-
tinued to exercise such supervision over and interest in the property
r as he thought would best secure its preservation and further accumu-
lation. .
The proof discloses the fact, that for some real or imaginary
reason, Keegan, in the latter part of the year 1878, or forepart
ofthe year. 1879, was fearful that his wife and some of her friends
would take measnreslto deprive him of the control of his property,
-1Tto ibring acharge of insanity, or incompetency, to manage his
property., before some of the courts in Chicago, so as to secure the ap-
pointment of a conservator, or put his property in the hands of
some other person to manage. He therefore, somewhat hurriedly,
in view of such a contingency, sent the personal estate to the
bishop at St. Paul, perhaps earlier than he intended; but when any
of the papers were returned_ to him he assumed always to be acting,
V in— whatever he did about it, in the interest and as the agent
of Bishop Ireland ;. stated frankly to his acquaintances the property
belonged to Bishop Ireland, and did not claim to be the absolute
owner of it. It is also true that Bishop Ireland sometimes, in his
communications to Keegan inreference to investments to be made
from the estate, treated Keegan as having some control or manage-
V ·ment.0f the property, or as being entitled to be consulted, or to have
the management of it; but this does not militate against the relation
of trust which thebishop had assumed, nor, it seems to me, can it `
be held to defeat the bishop’s title., , 4 V _ _