(after stating the case). It seems to us very plain, that the testator intended, by the clause of his will above recited, that his daughters should have the “use and benefit” of his'land while they, or any two of them, should live together upon it — that is, that they should have the right to live upon, use and cultivate it, or have it cultivated, for their own exclusive benefit. There is nothing in the will that even suggests the contrary. ■
The plaintiffs are the three surviving daughters; they have lived upon the land together ever since the testator’s death, and upon it they produced the cotton in question the year next after his death. It, so far as appears, was theirs absolutely. The. defendant had no right to it whatever, for any purpose; nevertheless, he took and sold it for his own use. Obviously, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover.
The counsel for the appellant contended, on the argument, that the clause of the will mentioned, created a trust in favor of the plaintiffs, and inasmuch as a Justice of the Peace has not authority, ordinarily, to administer trusts, therefore he did not.have jurisdiction of this action. This contention is unfounded. Neither the executor nor any other person is directed by the will to take charge of, supervise and control the property, collect the rents and pay the same to the daughters — no such provision appears in terms or *92by implication. Indeed, it seems that the purpose of the testator was to provide a home for his daughters, and a means for their support; they were to have the use and benefit of the land; it was not intended that a trustee, should let the land and hire the personal property, first to one person and afterwards to another,. and account for the rents and hires.
No error. Judgment affirmed.