A private trustee is, as we have seen, one to whom property, either real or personal, has been given to be held in trust for the benefit of others; and the most common instances are trustees of property for the benefit of children, or other devisees or legatees, or for married women, or for the payment of the debts of an insolvent, or for the management and winding up of some business, and the like.

(c) Gower v. Main waring, 2 Ves. Sen. 89; Cole v. Wade, 16 Ves. Jr. 43.

Where property is devised to executors in trust, their relation to the estate as trustees is as distinct from their relation to it as executors as if they were not executors. (cc)

The legal estate is in the trustee, and the equitable estate is in the cestui que trust; but as the trustee holds the estate, although only with the power and for the purpose of managing it, he is bound personally by the contracts he makes as trustee, although designating himself as such; and nothing will discharge him but an express provision, showing clearly that both parties agreed to act upon the responsibility of the funds alone, or of some other responsibility, exclusive of that of the trustee; or some other circumstance clearly indicating another party who is bound by the contract, and upon whose credit alone it is made. The mere use by the promisor of the name of Trustee, or of any other name of office or employment, will not discharge him. Some one must be bound by the contract, and if he does not bind some other, he binds himself, (d) *and the official name is then regarded only as describing and designating him. (dd)

A trustee is held not only to careful management of the trust property, so that it shall not be wasted or diminished, but he is bound to secure its reasonable productiveness and increase. If one of joint trustees permit by his want of due care another trustee to waste the fund, he will be responsible for the loss. (de) If a trustee mingles the trust money with his own, as by depositing it in a bank in his own name, he will be liable for any depreciation. (df) It has been said that a trustee, by reason of the confidence reposed in him, is bound to take more care of the trust property than of his own, for he may speculate with his own, but must not with what he holds in trust. (dg) He is bound not to make use of the trust property for his own benefit. (dh) If it lie idle in his hands, without cause, he will be charged interest. (e) In some instances he is charged compound interest; but there is some discrepancy in the cases in which the question of compounding interest occurs. On the whole, we think the rule may be stated thus: Interest will be compounded, or computed with annual rests, where the trustee is guilty of gross delinquency, or mingles the trust property with his own for his own benefit, or employs it in trade, or otherwise so uses the trust funds as to justify the belief that he has actually earned interest upon the interest; and the reason for charging compound interest is much stronger, when the trustee refuses to exhibit the accounts, which would show, precisely, what loss or advantage he has derived from the trust funds. (/) But he * will not be charged even

(cc) Parsons v. Lyman, 5 Blatchford, 170.

(d) Thomas v. Bishop, Cas. Temp. Hardw. 9, 2 Str. 955. In this case a cashier was held liable on a bill accepted by him generally, though it was drawn on account of the company. Childs v. Monins, 2 Br. & B. 460. A promissory note, by which the makers, as executors, jointly and severally promise to pay on demand with interest, renders them personally liable. - Eaton v. Bell, 5 B. & Ald. 34. Commissioners of a private inclosure act are personally liable on drafts drawn on bankers, requesting them to pay the sums therein mentioned on account of public drainage, and to place the same to their account, as commissioners. - Rew v. Pettet, 1 A. & E. 196, 3 New & M. 456. The makers of a note who sign it " as church-wardens and overseers," are personally liable, although the loan was for the use of the parish.- Ex parte Buckley, 14 M. & W. 469. It was held, in this case, that there was no separate right of action against "R. M.," a partner who signed a promissory note for himself and his copartners thus: " For J. C, R. M., J. P., and T. S," "R. M." See Packard v. Nye, 2 Met. 47; ante, p. * 55.

(dd) Fullam v. West Brookfield, 9 Allen, 1. And see p. and note (1) ante.

(de) Schenck v. Schenck, 1 C. E. Green, 174.

(df) Mason v. Whithome, 2 Cow. 242.

(dg) King v. Talbot, 50 Barb. 453. (dh) Flagg v. Ely, 1 Edm. 206.

(e) Green v. Winter, 1 Johns. Ch. 26; Manning v. Manning, 1 Johns. .Ch. 527; Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. 620. In Attorney-General v. Alford, 4 De G. M. & G. 843, the rule upon this point is laid down thus. The measure by which the court ought to charge a trustee interest is, to ascertain what interest he has received, or ought to have received, or that he is estopped from saying he did not receive.

(f) Jones v. Foxall, 15 Beav. 392; Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. 620; Evertson v. Tappen, 5 Johns. Ch. 497; Luken's Appeal, 7 W. & S. 48; Boynton v. Dyer, 18 Pick. 1; Turney v. Williams, 7 Yerg. 172; Wright v. Wright, 2 McCord, Ch. 200; Bryant v. Craig, 12 Ala. 354; Karr's Adm'r v. Karr, 6 Dana, 3; Rowan v. Kirkpatrick, 14 Ill. 1; Barney v. Saunders, 16 How. 535. See also Raphael v. Boehm, 11 Ves. 92; s. c. 13 Ves. 407, 590; Ashburnham v. Thompson, 13 Ves. 402; Tebbs v. Carpenter, 1 Madd. 299; Swindall v. Swindall, 3 Ired. Eq. 285. - But mere neglect to invest the money, or an improper investment, without gross delinquency, Knott v. Cottee, 16 Beav. 77; Robinson v. Robinson, 1 De G., M. & G. 147; Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. 620; McCall's case, 1 Ashm. 357; English v. Harvey, 2 Rawle, 305; Har-land's case, 5 Rawle, 323; Findlay v. Smith, 7 S. & R. 264; Dietterich v. Heft,

5 Barr, 87, or merely mingling the trust funds with his own, is not sufficient to charge him with compound interest. Clarkson v. De Peyster, 1 Hopk. Ch. 424; s. c. nom. De Peyster v. Clarkson, 2 Wend. 77; Stafford, In re, 11 Barb. 353; Ker v. Snead, Circuit Court of Virginia (Oct. 1847), Scarburgh, J., 11 Law Rep. 217. In the case of Pay v. Howe, 1 Pick. 527, and Robbins v. Hayward, cited in a note to this case, where large sums of money had come into the hands of a guardian of infants, there being rents of real estate and income from public stocks periodically received, and no account having been settled for many years, it was ordered that an account should be settled with a rest for every year, and the balance thus struck should be carried forward, to be again on interest, whenever the sum should be so large that a trustee acting faithfully and discreetly would have put it into a productive state. And five hundred dollars was the sum which the court thought should subject the guardian to this charge. But for cases in which it appears to be doubted whether compound interest should be charged to a trustee, see McCall's case, 1 Ashm. 357; English v. Harvey, 2 Rawle, 305; Harland's case, 5 Rawle, 323; Findlay v. Smith, 7 S. & R. 264; Ackerman v. Emott, 4 Barb. 626. And see Dietterich v. Heft, 5 Barr, 87; Kerr v. Laird, 27 Miss. 544. See Penny-packer's App. 41 Penn. St. 494, where it is held that the principle of rests does not apply to guardians, executors, or adminiswith simple interest until a reasonable time for investment has elapsed; and this has been held, in some cases, six months, a year, or even two years. (g)

A trustee must not himself purchase the property which it is his duty as trustee to sell; nor sell the property which, as trustee, he purchases. This rule applies, in its whole extent, to all agents, and the reasons, limitations, and authorities for it, were presented in treating of that subject. (gg)

A purchaser from a trustee with knowledge that a trust attaches to the property, holds it subject to the trust. (gh)