of such parts and to invest in such securities as they should think fit and to apply the interest arising from such investments to the maintenance support and education of the plaintiffs Ralph Lauren Outlet Online until they should attain the age of twenty-one years and upon their attaining such age to pay to them the whole of the moneys so invested.The defendant and Irwin accepted the trusts of the will realized Nike Shop the estate and allotted to the plaintiffs and retained for them the sum of After the death of Irwin the defendant continued to act as trustee and retained possession of the fund.The plaintiffs after each had attained the age Nike Max Air of twenty- Statement one years brought this action alleging that the trustees did not invest the sum of as required by the will and that it had produced much less interest than it would have done had it been properly invested; alleging also that they had requested the defendant Ralph Lauren Outlet to pay over the to them but that he had neglected and refused to do so and claiming payment of the sum of an inquiry as Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet to Nike Max Air 90 what interest or profit would have been derived if the fund had Nike Argentina been properly invested and payment of the difference between the amount which should have been derived and the amount paid over for the plaintiffs maintenance.The defendant set up in his statement of defence that he had in good faith and with the approval of Andrew Spratt the grandfather of the plaintiffs and their guardian appointed by a Surrogate Court their father and mother being dead entered into an arrangement for the deposit of the in the savings bank department of a chartered bank and that the fund had been so deposited by the defendant and Irwin in his lifetime and had remained there at interest ever since. He also said that he was always willing and had offered to pay over the fund and interest to the plaintiffs but they would not accept it.The action came on for trial before BOYDC at Hamilton on the th MarchThe evidence shewed that the was deposited in the savings bank department of a chartered bank at threeand a half and four per cent interest which disposition of the money had been acquiesced in by the guardian of the plaintiffs; and that the question between the parties was only as to the payment of extra interest and not as to the principal or the interest accrued upon the money in the bank.The case was argued at the close of the evidence.Bicknellfor The North Face Outlet the plaintiffs. The defendant is answerable for the interest North Face Outlet Store he should have Nike Free Run obtained by investingArgument the moneys: W. & T. L. C th ed -; Bruere v. Pembcrton VesSmith on Negligence nd ed -. R. S. O. ch sec shews what investments Nike Free are permissible. Upon the measure of damages I cite Wightmanv. Helliwell Gr. at pInglisv. Beaty A. RWiardv. Gable GrBloggv. Johnson tL. R ChSmallv. Eccles Gr There was no acquiescence because there was no full knowledge of rights and the plaintiffs were minors. See Lewin on Trusts th ed p The acquiescence of the guardian could not operate as against the trusts of the will.H. H. Robertsonfor the defendant. No damages should be given against the defendant. There Polo Outlet Online was no breach of trust; the trust was to invest as the executors should think fit. There was a discretion to allow the principal to remain in the bank and the guardian acquiesced in what was being done. I refer to Beatonv. Boomer Ch. Chamb. RRe Brow Ch. D The plaintiffs on coming of age ratified what was done by the executor: see Hugginsv. Law A. R Even if interest is allowed the executor should get his costs out of The North Face Outlet Store the fund. The breach of trust if any is an innocent one; the defendant had filed his petition in the Surrogate Court and offered to account in the ordinary way. See Lewin North Face Outlet on Trusts th ed pTurnerv. Hancock Ch. DSandfordv. Porter A. RBicknellin rep