Guardian and Ward—Investments of Funds by Guardian—Action of Guardianship Court.—The only action of the guardianship court which will protect a guardian in the matter of the investment of the funds of the ward, must be action had under such circumstances as show a bringing of such matter by the guardian to the attention of the court for an adjudication thereon.

Id.—Orders for Withdrawal of Small Sums for Support of Wards— Ratification of Investment not Implied.—Orders made by the guardianship court, from time to time, for the withdrawal of funds from the possession of the administrator for the support of the wards do not indicate any knowledge on the part of the court that the guardian had made any permanent deposit of the funds, nor imply any ratification of the same or of the mode of the control thereof.

Id.—Measure of Care and Skill Required of Guardian.—The measure of care and skill required of a guardian or similar trustee is such as would be exercised by a man of ordinary prudence and skill in the management of his own business.

Id.—Rule as to Temporary Deposit of Trust Funds in Bank for Safe Keeping—Necessity of Earmarking Deposit—Failure of Bank.—-The necessity of temporarily depositing trust funds in a bank for safe keeping is recognized, and if a trustee, for the purposes of such temporary deposit, exercises the degree of care and skill stated in the selection of a bank, and so earmarks the deposit as to show its trust character, he is not responsible for the failure of the bank; but if he deposits the money in his individual real name, without any designation or indication of his representative character, he is generally liable in the event of loss through the failure of the hank, notwithstanding he has not been guilty of any negligence.

Id.—Permanent Investment without Order of Court—Loan to Bank on Personal Security—Loss from Failure—Want of Due Care—Liability of Guardian.—In the absence of an order of court permitting it, a deposit by the guardian of the funds of his ward in a bank for permanent investment is, in effect, a loan to the bank on personal security only, which is not a proper exercise of due care. In such case, the guardian is liable to make good the loss of such permanent investment as the result of the failure of the bank.

Id.—Relinquishment op Control op Investment to Surety op Guardian—Guarantor op Fund—Motive and Cause op Loss Immaterial.—Where there was a relinquishment of control over the permanent investment by the guardian by leaving the bank book in the control of a surety company which was sole surety on the guardian’s bond, .so that the guardian could make no draft upon the fund without its consent, the guardian thereby became a guarantor of the fund, irrespective of his motive or of whether his surrender of control was the cause of the loss of the fund. Where the loss occurred through failure of the bank, the court will not inquire, in determining the liability of the guardian, whether such loss was due to his abdication or control of the investment.

Id.—Duty op Guardian to Control Fund—Withdrawal on Indication op Danger.—It was the duty of the guardian, as trustee of the investment fund, to retain absolute control thereof, and to withdraw the money from the bank upon the slightest indication of danger or loss. He cannot perform his duty promptly if he is clogged by the necessity of procuring the concurrent action of other persons. Id.—Control op Trust Fund by Surety Dependent on Sanction op Law.—It is held that if it be desired to provide some method by which a surety company may have some control of a trust fund as to which it has merely become surety for an officer of the court, such as a guardian or administrator, to whom the court has given such fund in charge, the method must be provided by the legislative department of the government; for the law, as it now stands in this state, does not authorize it.