majority"> Ruffin, J.

No fraud seems to be imputed to the defendant, but in the argument the case was made to turn solely upon the exception to the instruction given, as to the degree of care and diligence required of him in the collection and investment of his ward’s money.

In both these particulars, the case comes directly within the rule laid down in Cumming v. Mebane, 63 N. C., 315; Shipp v. *166 Hettrick, Ib., 329; and Patton v. Farmer, 87 N. C., 337, and must be governed thereby.

These authorities clearly sustain the charge given to the jury in this case, their .principle being that no trustee will be held for loss, who acts in good faith and manages his trust funds with that degree of diligence which prudent business men, similarly situated, use in the conduct of their own affairs.

As to the investment in other Confederate securities, of which complaint is made: It was his duty to invest the fund in some way, and the case discloses that he could find no other means of doing so, and in Shipp v. Hettrick, one of the very grounds upon which the trustee in that case was held responsible, was his failure to make the same investment of his trust fund in Confederate bonds, that he had done of his own.

We perceive, therefore, no error in the instructions given, or in the judgment of the court, and the same must be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress