This ambiguity in the trust instruments is further evidence that Richards retained, in reality, substantial economic interests in the stock. Cf. Chandler v. Commissioner, 19 F.2d 623, affirming 41 B.T.A. 165; Leslie H. Green, 7 T.C. 263, affd. 168 F.2d 994; Gordon M. Mather, 5 T.C. 1001 affd. 157 F.2d 680, certiorari denied 330 U.S. 819; Charles T. Fisher, 28 B.T.A. 1164. The petitioners contend that the various attributes of ownership which Richards retained were retained in a fiduciary capacity, or were reserved for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trusts.

The Chandler case is distinguishable from this proceeding. Petitioner relies upon William J. Garland, 42 B.T.A. 324, and Gordon M. Mather, 5 T.C. 1001, affd., 157 Fed.(2d) 680, certiorari denied, 330 U.S. 819. The Garland case followed the Chandler case.

This power exists solely for the protection of rights of the grantor who created the trust and of the rights of the beneficiaries of the trust— there is no public interest in the matter where the parties to the instrument are purely private parties. See also, Harold F. Jones, 6 T.C. 412, and Gordon M. Mather, 5 T.C. 1001, where we said: * * * Equity courts will go no farther than to protect the beneficiaries in the enjoyment of the rights actually granted to them by the terms of the trust agreement.

‘Equity courts will go no further than to protect the beneficiaries in the enjoyment of the rights actually granted to them by the terms of the trust agreement.‘ Gordon M. Mather, 5 T.C. 1001. The decision of a trustee in the exercise of his discretion can not be overridden by the courts unless the trustee decides arbitrarily, capriciously or in bad faith.