case which v east India company Lord chancellor Talbot a executor  administrator or trustee for a infant neglect to sue within six year the  statute of limitation shall bind the infant the east India company be bind by  contract to make a allowance of two rupee per cent to the plaintiff intestate  for which the plaintiff the administrator de good non of his father bring a  bill the intestate with who the company make the contract be then beyond sea  and there die leave a infant son of tender year upon the death of the  intestate administration be grant to a until the say son shall come to  twentyone ad use et just of the infant who at that time be about year of age  the administrator in trust for the infant never commence any suit on this  contract but the son within six year after his attain twentyone bring this  bill against the company who plead the statute of limitation videlicet that  the cause of action do accrue above six year before the suit commence  whereupon it be argue that as the time do not run against the father with who  the contract be make because he be beyond sea and die there so after the death  of the father the son be a infant and ought not to be bar or prejudice by the  neglect or default of his trustee the administrator during his minority peer  William Lord chancellor the administrator during the infancy of the plaintiff  have a right to sue and though the beneficiary and trust be a infant yet he  must be bind by the trustee not sue in time for I can take away the benefit of  the statute of limitation from the company who be in no default and be entitle  to take advantage thereof as well as private person since their witness may  die or their voucher be lose and as to the trust that be only between the  administrator and the infant and do not affect the company so where there be a  executor in trust for another and the executor neglect to bring his action  within the time prescribe by the statute the beneficiary and trust or residue  by legatee will be bar therefore allow the plea Reg lib b fol in the case of  the earl v the countess of Huntingdon hill the Lord chancellor Parker be of  opinion but do not then determine the point that a fine and five year nonclaim  shall in favour of a purchaser bar a trust term though the beneficiary and  trust be a infant by if the purchaser have notice of the trust Kennedy Daly  Sch Lef Hovenden v Lord Annesley Sch Lef pentland v Stokes ba be say vide  Lechmere v earl of Carlisle ante