Its decision to retain the asset must be the result of a prudent, reasoned and deliberate decision-making process. See In re Paterson Nat'l Bank, 125 N.J. Eq. 73, 4 A.2d 59 (Prerog.Ct. 1939), aff'd, 127 N.J.Eq. 362, 12 A.2d 705 (E. A. 1940), discussed infra at 21-23. It is clear that the duty of a trustee to exercise care is affected by a retention provision.

The failure to disclose such interest in the corporations whose stock was held by the trustee does not constitutes a failure to make the proper disclosure required of accountant. In re Griggs', Estate, 125 N.J.Eq. 73, 4 A.2d 59. The testimony disclosed that all of the stock held by this accountant for other estates or by accountant's directors individually or in a representative capacity was handled in the identical manner as the herein-questioned stock was handled.

See R.S. 3:16-12 and R.S. 3:16-1(u) (as amended). The most apposite expression thereof seems to be In re Griggs, 125 N.J. Eq. 73, 76 ( Prerog. 1939), affirmed per curiam, sub nom. In re PatersonNational Bank, 127 N.J. Eq. 362 ( E. A. 1940).

"The conduct of the trustee then is to be measured by the principle that a trustee owes an obligation to the cestuis and a duty to exercise that degree of care, prudence, circumspection and foresight, that an ordinary prudent person would employ in like matters of his own. See In re Griggs, 125 N.J. Eq. 73 ( Prerog. Ct. 1939); affirmed, sub nom. In re Paterson NationalBank, 127 N.J. Eq. 362 ( E. A. 1940); In re Buckelew'sEstate, 128 N.J. Eq. 81 ( Prerog. Ct. 1940); In re Ebert, 136 N.J. Eq. 123 ( Prerog. Ct. 1945); Braman v. CentralHanover Bank Trust Co., 138 N.J. Eq. 165 ( Ch. 1946); Dickerson v. Camden Trust Co., supra. Also cf. R.S. 3:16-12.

Liberty Title Trust Co. v.Plews, 142 N.J. Eq. 493 ( Ch. 1948); Dickerson v. CamdenTrust Co., 140 N.J. Eq. 34 ( Ch. 1947); affirmed, 1 N.J. 459 ( Sup. Ct. 1949). The conduct of the trustee then is to be measured by the principle that a trustee owes an obligation to the cestuis and a duty to exercise that degree of care, prudence, circumspection and foresight, that an ordinary prudent person would employ in like matters of his own. See In reGriggs, 125 N.J. Eq. 73 ( Prerog. Ct. 1939); affirmed, subnom In re Paterson National Bank, 127 N.J. Eq. 362 ( E. A. 1940); In re Buckelew's Estate, 128 N.J. Eq. 81 ( Prerog.Ct. 1940); In re Ebert, 136 N.J. Eq. 123 ( Prerog. Ct. 1945); Braman v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co.,138 N.J. Eq. 165 ( Ch. 1946); Dickerson v. Camden Trust Co., supra. Also cf. R.S. 3:16-12. No evidence was presented by the plaintiff that the stock could have been sold shortly after testator's death.

The failure to disclose such interest in the corporations whose stock was held by the trustee does not constitute a failure to make the proper disclosure required of accountant. In re Griggs, 125 N.J. Eq. 73; 4 Atl. Rep. 2d 59. The testimony disclosed that all of the stock held by this accountant for other estates or by accountant's directors individually or in a representative capacity was handled in the identical manner as the herein-questioned stock was handled.

It is a well-recognized rule that a trustee is not responsible for mere mistakes. The court expressed this in In re Griggs,125 N.J. Eq. 73; 4 Atl. Rep. 2d 59, as follows: "All that the law exacted of our trustee in the administration of its stewardship was an obligation of faithfulness to the cestui and a duty to exercise ordinary care, prudence and diligence. Smith v. Jones, 89 N.J. Eq. 502;104 Atl. Rep. 380. So long as it acted in good faith, with ordinary care, caution and discretion and within the scope of its powers, our trustee cannot, and will not, be held liable for the consequence of its mere mistakes, even if such there were, resulting from mere errors of judgment and not proceeding from any fraud, gross carelessness or indifference to duty on its part. Monroe v. Osborne, 43 N.J. Eq. 248; 10 Atl. Rep. 267; Heisler v. Sharp,44 N.J. Eq. 167; 14 Atl. Rep. 624; affirmed, 45 N.J. Eq. 367;19 Atl. Rep. 621; In re Leonard, 107 N.J. Eq. 235;152 Atl. Rep. 243; In re Corn Exchange National Bank, 109 N.J. Eq. 169;156 Atl. Rep. 455."

In my judgment the word "investments" is a broader term than the word "securities," and I have no hesitancy in saying that, as used in the Wallace will, the words "investments," "investments and reinvestments" include common and preferred stocks of private corporations. This conclusion agrees with the dictionary definitions cited by counsel for the defendant in their brief, and also the interpretation placed upon it by this court in Harris v. Guartee Trust Co., 115 N.J. Eq. 602;affirmed, 117 N.J. Eq. 423; Wild v. Brown, 120 N.J. Eq. 31;In re Ward, 121 N.J. Eq. 555; affirmed, 121 N.J. Eq. 606; TheMorris Community Chest v. Wilentz, 124 N.J. Eq. 580 (in this case the use of the word "investment" by Vice-Chancellor Stein is significant); In re Paterson National Bank, 125 N.J. Eq. 73;affirmed, 127 N.J. Eq. 362, in which the term "stock investment" is used by Vice-Chancellor Lewis; Warmholts v. Holt, 133 N.J. Eq. 597, in which the word "investments" was held to include real estate as well as personal property. And see, also, R.S.3:16-1 as amended by chapter 166, P.L. 1942 p. 476, entitled, "An act relative to investments by fiduciaries, c.," and R.S.3:16-12, where the use of the word "investments" leaves no doubt that it was intended by the legislature that it should apply to common and preferred stocks of private corporations.

Lewin's Law of Trusts ( 12th ed.) 327. To the same effect are the following authorities: 2 Scott onTrusts 924 § 174; Heisler v. Sharp, 44 N.J. Eq. 167; affirmed,45 N.J. Eq. 367; Corle v. Monkhouse, 50 N.J. Eq. 537;Pfefferle v. Herr, 75 N.J. Eq. 219; Smith v. Jones, 89 N.J. Eq. 502;In re Leonard, 107 N.J. Eq. 235, 237; In re CornExchange National Bank, 109 N.J. Eq. 169; Harris v. GuaranteeTrust Co., 115 N.J. Eq. 602; Liberty Title and Trust Co. v. Stevens, 115 N.J. Eq. 506; People's National Bank and Trust Co. v. Bichler, 115 N.J. Eq. 617; In re Pettigrew, 115 N.J. Eq. 401;In re Megargee, 117 N.J. Eq. 347; In re Cross, 117 N.J. Eq. 429;Willson v. Tripp, 124 N.J. Eq. 45; In re Griggs, 125 N.J. Eq. 73;Sheridan v. Riley, 133 N.J. Eq. 288; In re Hazeltine,119 N.J. Eq. 308. In Heisler v. Sharp, supra (at p. 172), the Vice-Ordinary said:

The prescribed measure of duty requires a trustee to exercise (expressed in the composite verbiage of the cases) that degree of care and caution, skill, sagacity, and judgment, industry and diligence, circumspection and foresight, that an ordinary discreet and prudent person would employ in like matters of his own. In re Griggs, 125 N.J. Eq. 73; 4 Atl. Rep. 2d 59;affirmed, sub nom. In re Paterson National Bank, 127 N.J. Eq. 362;12 Atl. Rep. 2d 705; Gates v. Plainfield Trust Co.,121 N.J. Eq. 460; 191 Atl. Rep. 304; affirmed, 122 N.J. Eq. 366;194 Atl. Rep. 65; In re Ward, 121 N.J. Eq. 555; 192 Atl. Rep. 68;affirmed, 121 N.J. Eq. 606; 191 Atl. Rep. 772; Wild v. Brown,120 N.J. Eq. 31; 183 Atl. Rep. 899; In re Cross, 117 N.J. Eq. 429;176 Atl. Rep. 101; Harris v. Guarantee Trust Co., 115 N.J. Eq. 602;172 Atl. Rep. 209; affirmed, 117 N.J. Eq. 423;176 Atl. Rep. 146; Peoples National Bank, c., of Pemberton v. Bichler,115 N.J. Eq. 617; 172 Atl. Rep. 207; In re Pettigrew, 115 N.J. Eq. 401;171 Atl. Rep. 152; affirmed, 116 N.J. Eq. 566;174 Atl. Rep. 478; Woodruff v. Freehold Trust Co., 112 N.J. Eq. 405;164 Atl. Rep. 411; affirmed, 116 N.J. Eq. 597; 174 Atl. Rep. 707; Inre Corn Exchange National Bank, 109 N.J. Eq. 169;156 Atl. Rep. 455; In re Leonard, 107 N.J. Eq. 235; 151 Atl. Rep. 729; Smith v. Jones, 89 N.J. Eq. 502; 104 Atl. Rep. 380;