The deceased had established a trust making the trust company and one Percy S. Peck co-trustees, and Peck was also made one of several beneficiaries. The will provided that Peck should have a general power of appointment by will over the corpus of the estate, and that in default of the exercise of such power, it should go to his issue if living. The plaintiffs are the issue of Peck, who is still alive. The trustees made certain investments which the plaintiffs claim injure the corpus of the trust, for which they ask that the transactions be declared illegal and that the trustees be required to restore to the trust fund the amount removed for these investments. The defendants, besides asserting the propriety of the investments, objected to the maintaining of a bill by these plaintiffs for the reason that as contingent remaindermen they did not have sufficient interest in the estate to support a suit. Held, that a contingent remainder, even of a defeasible character, is a sufficient interest upon which to predicate a suit for the protection of the trust res. Roberts v. Michigan Trust Co., 273 Mich. 91, 262 N. W. 744 (1<)35).