This action was brought to recover damages for alleged misinvestment and mismanagement of trust funds.

The complaint alleged that in 1867 and 1868 certain moneys ($8,953.60) were deposited with the county treasurer, the defendant Roe, to be invested, the income to be paid to Sarah E. Firth, the widow of one John Firth, to whom the property belonged, during her lifetime, as and for her dower, and at her death the principal to be paid to the plaintiffs, the children of decedent.

That the interest was paid said widow until her death, which occurred April 14,1878.

That by order of this court, dated May 7, 1878, the county treasurer, the defendant Carll, was directed to pay the principal to the plaintiffs; and that in part performance of said order said Carll paid plaintiffs the sum of $3,200, and has refused to pay the balance, and the sum of $5,753 is now due and unpaid.

That of said sum of $8,953.60, the sum of $3,500 was invested by said Roe on a certain bond and mortgage. That at the time such investment was made the mortgage was not sufficient security. That he subsequently illegally and without consideration released a portion of the property from the lien o.f the mortgage.

That the defendant Bergen succeeded Roe as such treasurer, and that he allowed the investment to remain as it was, and also illegally and without consideration released another portion of the mortgaged premises.

That the defendant Oarll succeeded Bergen as such treasurer, and also allowed such investment to remain as it was, and finally foreclosed the mortgage, without including the premises so released; and that he ought to have included the premises so released, such release being fraudulent, illegal and void.

That upon a sale under said foreclosure a loss occurred.

The complaint further alleges that of said sum of $8,953.60, said Roe further invested the sum of $2,513.60 on a certain other bond and mortgage; that the same were not sufficient security, and ought not to have been taken by him.

That his successor, the defendant Bergen, allowed such investment to remain as it was; and that his successor, Oarll, also did the same, and finally foreclosed the mortgage at a sacrifice, and by his misappropriation of the proceeds of such foreclosure a still further loss ensued.

The defendants severally demurred to the complaint, on the ground of improper joinder of causes of action.

The case was submitted on briefs April 14, 1879.