Petitions for transfer to this court of this proceeding, after decision by the District Court of Appeal of the Fourth District, were filed by the Occidental Indemnity Company and by the Industrial Accident Commission. These petitions we granted and the whole matter is now before us as presented upon the original pleadings of the parties filed in the District Court of Appeal.

At the time of granting said petitions we were and still are in perfect agreement with the opinion of the District Court of Appeal in so far as it annulled the order of the Commission dismissing the Occidental Indemnity Company from liability. We were in doubt, however, as to the correctness of the opinion in failing to annul the order of the Commission dismissing the First National Trust and Savings Bank of San Diego and its insurance carrier, The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, from liability.

There is no contention but that the First National Trust and Savings Bank of San Diego was during all of the times mentioned in the proceeding a corporation organized, existing and doing business under the laws of the United States of America, and as such was authorized to carry on the banking business, both savings and commercial, and also to transact a general trust business. Being incorporated as a trust company it had the power and authority to act as the executor of the last will of a decedent when appointed to act in that capacity by any court of competent jurisdiction. While acting as the executor of the will of a deceased, if it undertook to carry on any business on behalf of the estate of said decedent, it became personally liable to all persons employed by it in such business not only for their wages but, in our opinion, for compensation in case any of such employees sustained a compensative injury while in its employ. “While an executor or an administrator is bound to perform his decedent’s contracts, except as authorized by will, or by statute, he cannot by virtue of his general powers as such make any contract which binds the estate, or create any debt or liability against the deceased, or the estate, which will authorize a judgment de bonis decedentis, even though it is made in the interest of and for the benefit of the estate he represents, and although he is described in such contract as personal representative.” (11 Cal. Jur., p. 1046.) “An executor or administrator does not, by his contracts, bind the estate he represents, but he is personally liable on his contracts for necessary matters relating to the estate, such as for services rendered in the performance of his duties as such.” (11 Cal. Jur., p. 1048; Golden Gate Undertaking Co. v. Taylor, 168 Cal. 94 [Ann. Cas. 1915D, 742, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1152, 141 Pac. 922 ]; Southern Pac. Co. v. Swanson, 73 Cal. App. 229 [ 238 Pac. 736 ].) Under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act (sees. 7 [Stats. 1929, p. 306] and 8), Bojens was an employee of the First National Trust and Savings Bank of San Diego. The latter was, therefore, personally liable in compensation for the injury to him and can only be relieved of this liability by a finding of the Industrial Accident Commission that it has complied with the Workmen’s Compensation Apt in protecting itself by securing proper and adequate compensation insurance. (Sec. 30 [e] [1] [Stats. 1929, p. 1167].) We think there can be no question but that this result followed from the facts shown herein. The bank, acting as executor, employed Bojens to perform certain duties for it in the settlement of said estate. As already noted, while the bank as executor employed Bojens, it was liable to him in its individual capacity for his wages. The amount paid as wages to Bojens would, if legally incurred, be allowed the bank by the court upon the settlement of the bank’s annual or final account. Being the employer of Bojens at the time of the injury of the latter, the bank was liable for compensation to him on account of said injury, the same having arisen out of and in the course of his employment. It is, therefore, clear that the Commission was' in error in finding that the First National Trust and Savings Bank was not individually liable for the payment of compensation arising from the injuries sustained by Bojens.

As we have seen, the bank at the time of Bojen’s injury carried compensation insurance with The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York. The policy issued to the bank by this company insures the bank against liability for injuries sustained by its employees in the course of its banking business. This appears in certain “declarations” set forth therein under the head of “Classification of Operations”. The classification of operations reads as follows: ‘ ‘ Banking: Clerical Office Employees . . . including all Executive Officers.” By section 2 of the California Bank Act (Stats. 1913, p. 137), “Banks are divided into the following classes: (a) Savings Banks; (b) Commercial Banks, and (c) Trust Companies.” In the Estate of Wellings, 192 Cal. 506, 519 [ 221 Pac. 628, 634 ]; this court held, “that it was competent for the legislature, considering the business which trust companies are doing in this state, to define such business as banking”. It would appear, therefore, that the word “banking” in this state, by legislative enactment and judicial sanction, has been accorded a meaning sufficiently comprehensive to include the business carried on by trust companies. Therefore, when the policy of insurance issued by The Fidelity and Casualty Company purported to cover the employees of the First National Bank of San Diego employed by it in its banking business, by its very terms it covered those employees of the bank whose duties were confined to the trust department carried on by the bank. It might be questioned whether the classification “Clerical Office Employees” would cover Bojens, who was, as we have seen, employed in the cigar business, which the bank as executor was carrying on. There were other provisions of the policy, however, which in our opinion extended the coverage provisions of the policy to all employees of the bank whether expressly included in the above classification or not. The policy issued by The Fidelity and Casualty Company was a standard form of policy provided by the law of this state. It contained provisions regarding occupations of the insured other than, and in addition to, those set forth in the “declarations” of the policy identically like those in the policy of indemnity considered by this court in the case of Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 194 Cal. 127 [ 228 Pac. 1 ]. We there held that the description in the declarations of classes of occupations in which the insured might engage, was not intended as limiting the list of operations, but only as fixing a premium rate applicable to the particular operations described therein; and that even though the insured was engaged at the time of the injury in work outside the terms and limitations expressed in said classifications, the effect was not to take the employer or employee outside the protection of the policy, but only to require the employer to pay a different premium than that provided for the particular employments specified in the declarations. The court in that opinion followed its prior ruling expressed in the case of Worswick Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 181 Cal. 550 [ 185 Pac. 953 ]. The rule thus announced is applicable to the facts in the present proceeding. While the occupation in which Bojens was engaged at the time of his injury may not have been expressed in the “classification of operations” contained in the “declarations” of the policy, other provisions of the policy were sufficiently broad and comprehensive to include him within the protection of the policy. One particular provision of the policy to which we refer is as follows: “This agreement shall apply to such injuries so sustained by reason of the business operations described in said declarations which for the purpose of this insurance shall include all operations necessary, incident or appurtenant thereto or connected therewith whether such operations are conducted at the work places defined and described in said declarations or elsewhere in connection with or in relation to such work places.”

Under this provision of the policy we are clearly of the view that The Fidelity and Casualty Company is liable as the insurer of the bank for the injury sustained by Bojens, while in the service of the bank as executor of the will of said decedent.

The argument is advanced by The Fidelity and Casualty Company that in the instant case it is in the same position as if it had insured a private individual carrying on a business who, while the insurance was in force, had been appointed executor of the will of a decedent. In such a case it is claimed and rightly so, that the insurance carrier of the private business of the individual would not be liable for any injury sustained by an employee of this same individual while acting as executor. The eases are not analogous. In the case of a private individual appointed to administer an estate, the settlement of the estate is distinct from and cannot in any sense be held to be a part of his private business. In the case of a bank, with the powers of a trust company, the administration of estates under appointment of the court is just as much a part of its corporate business as the receiving of deposits over its bank counter or the loaning of funds entrusted to it. A private individual, acting as executor, carries on the business of the estate entirely separate and distinct from his private business, while a trust company in performing like services is simply carrying out the objects and purposes of its creation. The argument, we think, is not sound.

We are appending hereto the opinion of the District Court of Appeal written by Presiding Justice Barnard annulling the order of the Commission dismissing from liability the Occidental Indemnity Company as adopted by us. It correctly expresses our views upon the questions considered and is as follows:

For the reasons set forth, the award of the Industrial Accident Commission is annulled and the matter is referred to said Commission for a further order, consistent with the views herein expressed.

Seawell, J., Preston, J., Shenk, J., Richards, J., and Langdon, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.