Summary

Louis Brandeis United States Willoughby v. Howard…

But the fact that the freedom of choice of the fiduciary is limited by statute does not relieve him of the duty of exercising care and prudence within the field left to his discretion. As he may not shut his eyes to the fact that a so-called legal investment is no longer sound, he may not disregard the fact that a depository proper when designated is no longer safe.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis United States Willoughby v. Howard…

Obviously the act does not in terms relieve the trustee of the common-law duty to exercise care in the custody of funds. The designation of banks of deposit proper for bankruptcy funds, like the listing of legal investments for trustees and guardians, limits the discretion which can be exercised by the depositing officer and may render him absolutely liable for the loss of funds placed in a nondesignated depository.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis United States Willoughby v. Howard…

By designating the Phillip Bank as a depository the court may have justified Howard in assuming that on August 20, 1930, it was a trust-worthy place of deposit for bankruptcy funds to the extent of $50,000. But throughout the period of deposit the legal duty to exercise care remained. If at any time he discovered facts tending to show that the place of deposit was no longer safe, it was his duty to bring the facts to the attention of the court.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature