In the former case, it may be observed, the act is of the negative kind: in the latter, it will commonly be of the positive kind.
As to the expression non-investment of trust, I am sensible that it is not perfectly consonant to the idiom of the language: the usage is to speak of a person as being invested (that is clothed) with a trust, not of a trust as of a thing that is itself invested or put on. The phrase at length would be, the non-investment of a person with a trust: but this phrase is by much too long-winded to answer the purpose of an appellative. I saw therefore, no other resource than to venture upon the ellipsis here employed. The ancient lawyers, in the construction of their appellatives, have indulged themselves in much harsher ellipsises without scruple. See above, xxv. note. It is already the usage to speak of a trust as a thing that vests, and as a thing that may be divested.IPML Chapter 16 Section 2 Part 5