as  a  man  of  ordinary  caution  would  take  of  his
own,^  and  if  they  have  done  so  they  will  not  be  lia-
ble for  any  accidental  loss ;  as,  for  instance,  by  a
robbery  of  the  property  while  in  their  own  posses-
sion,'' or  by  a  robbery  or  loss,  wiiilst  in  the  posses-
sion of  others  with  whom  it  has  necessarily,  i.  e.,
in  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  been  entrusted.*
But  the  court,  in  determining  the  liability  or  non-
liability of  a  trustee  for  any  loss  sustained  by  the
trust  estate,  distinguishes  between  the  duties  im-
posed upon  and  the  discretions  vested  in  him  as
such.  And  as  regards  his  duties,  the  utmost  dili-
gence in  observing  the  same  (i.  e.,  exacta  diligen-
tia)  is  his  only  protection  against  liability  for  any
loss ;  while  as  regards  his  discretions,  or  discretion
ary  powers,  an  amount  of  diligence  equal  to  what
he  bestows  on  his  own  property  will  protect  him
from  liability.  Thus,  firstly,  as  regards  duties,  if  a
trustee  or  executor  permit  the  trust-fund  to  remain
unnecessarily,  or  contrary  to  his  duty,  in  the  hands
of  third  parties,  as,  for  instance,  if  money  be  left
in  the  hands  of  a  banker  more  than  a  year  after  the
testator's  death,  and  after  the  debts,  &c.,  have  been
paid  ;*  or  if  a  trustee  mix  trust  property  with  his


(a.'i  Duties.
1  Joy  V.  Campbell,  1  Sch.  &  Lef .  341 ;  Clough  v.  Bond,  3  My.
&  Cr.  497 ;  Ex  parte  Belchler,  Amb.  219.  [Leggett  v.  Hunter
19  N.  Y.  445].
2  [Davis  y.  Hannan,  21  Gratt.  200.]
'  Morley  v.  Morley,  2  Ch.  Ca.  2.
■•  Jones  V.  Lewis,  2  Ves.  240;  Swinfen  v.  Swlnfen,  29  Beav.
211.    [Foster  v.  Davis,  46  Mo.  268].
