HAZARD v. DURAM. 27
in and to the assets, or property of every description. now held by said
trusteesyarising out of or connected with the assignment to them of said
contracts of said Ames and of said Davis, or out of the administration of said
trust; but no right or claim against said trustees, or either of them, or their
representatives, for any error, omission, or misconduct, if any, in the adminis-
tration of said trust is hereby assigned; the parties oi' the second part having,
by an instrument of even date herewith, released said trustees and their rep-
resentatives from all, and all possible, claims on account of such error, omis-
sion, or misconduct."
By the second indenture, executed the same day and prior in point
of time, the complainant and nve of his co-benenciaries released the
defendant trustees from "al1 possible claims of every nature or de-
scription arising out of their, or each of their, errors, omissions, mis-
takes, or misconduct in the past administration of said trust."
The nrst question is as to the scope to be given to the two releases
embraced in the nrst plea. Upon careful consideration we think
they constitute a bar to this suit. We think it was the intention of .
the parties by these instruments to assign all their rights in the Credit
Mobilier stock and dividends, and pronts thereon, to the Union Pacino
Railroad Company, and to release the defendant trustees from all
claims by reason of any alleged misconduct in the administration of
the trust. The only thing excepted was an interest in the Rhode
Island suits. In respect to these, the Union Pacino Railroad Com-
pany was to account to the complainant for a certain proportion of any
sums recovered which came into its hands; and the complainant and
his co-beneficiaries were allowed to retain 10 shares of Credit Mobi-
lier stock in trust, until the termination of the suits, and were then
to convey the same to the Union Pacino Railroad Company. It is
diincult to see how this conferred any right on the complainant, seven
years after the execution of these instruments, to bring suit against
the trustees seeking to hold them in respect to the very matters spe-
cincally covered and settled by these agreements.
Whatever rights to the receipt of profits from the trustees under
the construction contract accrued to the complainant bythe agree-
ment of October 15, 1867, and the subsequent agreement of July 3,
1868, must he held to have passed to the Union Pacino Railroad
Company under the second provision already cited of the nrst inden-
ture set up in the plea. •
It is urged that the assignment to the Union Pacino Railroad Com-
pany only covered property then in the hands of the trustees, and
that the release to the trustees only related to past errors and mis-
conduct. Taking the several provisions in these two indentures to-
gether, and their evident purpose, it is clear, we think, that the plain-
tiff intended to part, and did part, with all his rights, legal and equi-
table, to call these trustees to account ; and it would seem strange if a
court of equity, in the face of these agreements, should allow the com-
plainant to maintain this suit.
The objection is made that the nrst plea is bad for duplicity. The