Upon appeal to this court both questions were answered in the affirmative. (See Smith v. Lymer, 29 Haw. 169.) Pursuant to final decree of this court, entered May 28, 1926, the trustees thereafter erected the Kamehameha Schools, from which these rents accrued and upon accounting were allowed commissions on the moneys expended as "final payments."

"The solution of this question necessarily depends upon the character of the system reasonably necessary to keep the accounts involved in the instant trust estate and to render annual accounts to the court of the trustees' appointment for under the law accordingly as they were beyond or within the skill and experience that might be reasonably expected of the ordinary trustee, the trustees are or are not entitled to reimbursement." The evidence overwhelmingly sustains a finding that the system of bookkeeping reasonably necessary under the provisions of the will of the testatrix and the provisions of law prescribing the legal duties of trustees is a simple double-entry set of books containing a simple segregation of corpus and income, the former to contain the further segregation of "cash principal" as that term is used in Revised Laws of Hawaii 1935, section 3793, as amended, and "final payment" as that term is employed in said section and as construed by this court in the case of Smith v. Lymer, 29 Haw. 169. What system of bookkeeping is reasonably necessary to the observance by the trustees of their legal duties to keep full and accurate accounts is not a mere matter of discretion, with the exercise of which by the trustees, equity will not interfere.

The facts having a bearing upon the question presented are not in dispute. From the opinion of this court in Smith v. Lymer, 29 Haw. 169, decided in 1926, we learn that the school buildings and plant erected by the trustees between 1887 and 1894 had become worn-out and unsuited to their purpose and the trustees proposed, if they had the authority, to erect an entirely new school plant for both the boys' and girls' schools at an estimated cost of $2,251,773. The estate then had liquid assets of $1,004,798 representing corpus, and the trustees proposed, if so authorized, to sell lands belonging to the estate to supplement said corpus fund available to defray the expense of said new buildings and plant.

This court has already enunciated the rule of reimbursement applicable to the employment by trustees of necessary agents and employees in the execution of their trusts. See Estate of Ena, 24 Haw. 414, in respect to the employment of brokers; Estate of Wichman, 27 Haw. 780, of realtors and Smith v. Lymer, 29 Haw. 169, of brokers selling lands. The language of the several decisions is so clear and unequivocal that repetition is unnecessary.