The first contention of the plaintiff in error is that the demurrer to the bill should have been sustained, because the nature of the trust was not therein so sufficiently set forth as to form the foundation of a decree on the part of a court of equity. Whether the trust was fully and accurately set forth could not be known until the filing of the answer or the taking of the proofs. When the dumurrer was heard, from all that then appeared, the exact provisions of the will of the testator raising the trust, and all the terms and conditions of the trust, were stated in the bill. It could not then be known whether or not there was anything more to state. What was stated showed the creation of a trust estate, the appointment of a trustee, the designation of a cestui que trust, and specific directions to the trustee in respect to his duties. The court could not assume that any of the provisions of the will relating to the subject-matter of the trust were omitted from the bill, and what was stated was sufficient, if correctly stated, to enable the court to act intelligently. The demurrer was, therefore, properly overruled. But the defendant refused to stand on his demurrer and answered the bill. Having, as it may be fairly presumed, the will of the testator before him, he undertook to set out in his answer, under oath, the provisions of the will in respect to the trust estate and trust in question. There is no pretense that any material word or clause, in relation to the subject of the trust, was omitted from the answer. It is, therefore, too late for the defendant, on final hearing in the appellate court, to object that the provisions of the will were not fully set out in the bill of complaint. If there was any defect in the statement made in the bill, it was rendered immaterial by the statements of the answer, and is not now ground of complaint. Greenleaf's Lessee v. Birth, 5 Pet. 131.
A similar assignment of error to that just noticed is that the court erred in removing the appellee from his office of trustee without having before it the will or declaration of trust for interpretation. But it § clear that a defendant to a bill in equity, who states in his answer under oath the provisions of a writing which is presumed to be in his possession, cannot complain that the court acted upon his admission. The court might in its discretion have refused to interpret the writing without its production. But having acted upon the presumption that the defendant in his answer stated truly the contents of the writing, the latter cannot, on the ground that the writing itself was not put in evidence, ask a reversal of the decree. Courts of equity are frequently required to act on the admissions of the answer without other proof. Thus, when a cause is heard upon bill and answer, the decree is based entirely on the admissions of the answer without other testimony. Reynolds v. Crawfordsville Bank, 112 U.S . 405; S.C.., ante, 213; Brinckerhoff v. Brown, 7 Johns. Ch. 217; Grosvenor v. Cartwright, 2 Cas. Ch. 21; Perkins v. Nichols, 11 Allen, 542. At all events, it does not lie in the mouth of a defendant in equity to complain that the court assumed his answer made under oath to be true and decreed accordingly.
The next assignment of error is that the decree rendered by the circuit court is not justified by the law. The decree rests solely on the ground alleged in the bill, of neglect of duty and mismanagement of the trust property. If these grounds are sustained by the proof, the authorities are ample to justify the decree of removal. For, where the acts or omissions of the trustee are such as to show a want of reasonable fidelity, a court of equity will remove him. Ex parte Phelps, 9 Mod. 357; Mayor of Coventry v. Attorney General, 7 Brown P. C. 235; Attorney General v. Drummond, 1 Dru. & W. 353; Attorney General v. Shore, 7 Sim. 309n; Ex parte Greenhouse, 1 Madd. 92; Ex parte Reynolds, 5 Ves. 707; Clemens v. Caldwell, 7 B. Mon. 171; Johnson's Appeal, 9 Pa. St. 416; Ex parte Potts, 1 Ash. 340; Buchanan v. Hamilton, 5 Ves. 722; Ellison v. Ellison, 6 Ves. 663; Portsmouth v. Fellows, 5 Madd. 450; Lathrop v. Smalley's Ex'r, 23 N. J. Eq. 192; Hussey v. Coffin, 1 Allen, 354; Attorney General v. Garrison, 101 Mass. 223.