But removal was refused where it appeared that the aversion of the beneficiary to the trustee grew out of the fact of his appoint ment to the exclusion of herself and her hus• band, and that her annoyance, alleged ill health and expense of employing counsel were due to her own acts; In re Neafie's Es tate, 199 Pa. 307, 49 Atl. 129 ; where the trustee's duties are merely formal and minis terial, although there was mutual be tween the parties; McPherson v. Cox, 96 U. S. 404, 24 L. Ed. 746 ; where the mere fact appears that the trustee forbade the bene ficiaries to hold social intercourse with him self or his family ; Nickels v. Philips, 18 Fla. 732 ; where there is a mere difference of opinion between the trustee and the bene ficiary ; In re Price's Eitate, 209 Pa. 210, 58 Atl. 280 ; or for some whim of a beneficiary ; In re Price's Estate, 209 Pa. 210, 58 Atl. 280; or for a mere disagreement between the trustee and the beneficiary ; Gibbes v. Smith, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 131.
In the following cases removal was re fused: Failure to perform a duty, or an injudicious exercise of discretion, or refusal to exercise a discretionary power ; Preston v. Wilcox, 38 Mich. 578 ; investing funds in hls own business, which was not hazardous, and he supposed the money was safe, and that he would save expense to the fund ; Lathrop v. Smalley's Ex'rs, 23 N. J. Eq. 192 ; neglect of duty in investing the fund, if the circumstances do not indicate bad faith and the fund has not been impaired ; Lathrop v. Smalley's Ex'rs, 23 N. J. Eq. 197 ; incur ring losses on apparently judicious loans on real estate by the failure of the borrower, which could not have been anticipated ; Dow v. Dow, 63 Hun, 628, 18 N. Y. Supp. 222 ; an honest mistake ; In re Durfee, 4 R. I. 401.
Where authority to manage real estate is given to one of several heirs appointed trus tee under a will, a power to the other heirs to remove him by unanimous resolution, with the concurrence of the widow, for good and sufficient cause, and appoint another in his place, will not be controlled by equity except for abuse ; May v. May, 167 U. S. 310, 17 Sup. Ct. 824, 42 L. Ed. 179. A power in a will given to one of two trustees and the beneficiaries to remove the other trustee was held not to be against public policy ; May v. May, 167 U. S. 310, 17 Stip. Ct. 824, 42 L. Ed. 179.
A trustee is entitled to all reasonable ex penses in carrying out the trust and all ex penses reasonably necessary for the security, protection, and preservation of the property as well as for the prevention of a failure of the trust; Gisborn v. Ins. Co., 142 U. S. 326, 12 Sup. Ct. 277, 35 L. Ed. 1029.
The mere naming a person trustee does not constitute him such. There must be an acceptance, express or implied; see Arm strong v. Morrill, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 139, 20 L. Ed. 765 ; as the acceptance is essential to the vesting of title in the trustee ; Bran don v. Carter, 119 Mo. 572, 24 S. W. 1035,
41 Am. St. Rep. 673. But if the person named trustee does not wish to be held re sponsible as such, he should, before med dling with the duties of a trustee, formally disclaim the trust ; v. Cromwell's Ex'rs, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 157.
Ordinarily, no writing is necessary to con stitute the acceptance of a trust in writing ; Flint v. Clinton Co., 12 N. H. 432. See TRUST.
The duties of trustees have been said, in general terms, to be: "to protect and pre serve the trust property, and to see that it is employed solely for the benefit of the cestui que trust." Bisph. Eq. § 138. He must take possession of the trust property, call in debts, and convert such securities as are not legal investments.
Personal securities are not, legal invest ments although the investment was made by the testator himself ; King v. Talbot, 40 N. Y. 76 ; Hemphill's Appeal, 18 Pa. 303 ; unless, by the terms of the trust, they are allowed ; Bisph. Eq. § 139.
He will not be liable for the failure of a bank in which he has deposited trust funds, unless he has permitted them to be there for an unreasonable length of time ; 29 Beay. 211; or has deposited them in his own name; Corya v. Corya, 119 Ind. 593, 22 N. E. 3 ; as he must not mix them with his own funds ; Stanley's Appeal, 8 Pa. 431, 49 Am. Dec. 530 ; De Jarnette v. De Jarnette, 41 Ala. 709.
Investments by executors contrary to the requirements of the will, upon mere person al security, are at their risk; Brewster v. Demarest, 48 J. Eq. 559, 23 AU. 271. A trustee is Personally liable for trust funds in vested in personal securities; 2 Con. Sur. 458; and if invested in his own business, or for his own benefit, he becomes an insurer of the fund; City of Bangor v. Beal, 85 Me. 129, 26 Atl. 1112; and is guilty of neglect if he loans money on an unsecured note; Nobles v. Hogg, 36 S. C. 322, 15 S. E. 359. See Dickinson's Appeal, 152 Mass. 184, 25 N. E. 99, 9 L. R. A. 279.
It is stated as a universal rule that a trus tee cannot invest in personal securities, even if he has a discretion under the instrument; Perry, Trusts, § 453; and investment in a manufacturing company is a breach of trust ; Warren v. Union Bank, 157 N. Y. 259, 51 N. E. 1036, 43 L. R. A. 256, 68 Am. St. Rep. 777. Investments in bank stocks have been held proper; McCoy v. Horwitz, 62 Md. 183; Harvard College v. Amory, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 446 (and in the shares of manufacturing and insurance companies); contra, Ackerman v. Emott, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 626; Perry's Appeal, 22 Pa. 44, 60 Am. Dec. 63. Trustees may use part of their funds in building on land own ed in the trust; -Stevens v. Melcher, 80 Hun 514, 30 N. Y. Supp. 625. It was said in an early case, Gray v. Fox, 1 N. J. Eq. 259, 22 Am. Dec. 508, that the only security safe for a trustee is real estate.