Stroud v. . Stroud
175 S.E. 131
N.C.
1934
Check Treatment
CONNOR, J.

It is well settled as the law of this State and elsewhere that neither an executor, an administrator nor a guardian is an insurer of the assets of the estate committed to his custody and care. In Deberry v. Ivey, 55 N. C., 370, it is said: “An executor, like other trustees, is not an insurer, nor to be held liable as such in taking care of the assets which come into his hands, nor in collecting them. He is answerable only for that crassa negligentia, or gross neglect, which evidences bad faith. The estates of deceased persons are deeply concerned in the existence of such a principle. If an executor was put into the position of an insurer — answerable for any neglect, however slight — unprotected by an honest endeavor to perform his duties, honest and reasonable men would rarely be found willing to incur the responsibility; and those only would incur it who calculated possible gain and loss.” See Thigpen v. Trust Co., 203 N. C., 291, 165 S. E., 720.

This principle is applicable to the facts as shown by all the evidence at the trial of this action. There was no evidence tending to show that the defendants were negligent in failing to collect the certificates of deposit which were issued to their intestate, and which came into their possession as assets of his estate. The amount of each certificate bore interest at the rate of four per cent per annum; each certificate was issued by a bank which had been selected by the deceased as a depository and which was open for business continuously from his death until it closed at the end of about four months. During this time, the defendant administrators had no notice that either of said banks was unsound, or would probably be forced to close its doors, because of its insolvency. The fact that other banks had closed and ceased to do business was not sufficient to put defendants on notice that the banks in Kinston were in an unsound condition, prior to their closing, if such was the fact.

*672 Tbe loss suffered by tbe plaintiffs in tbe instant case is one of tbe casualties of business, and must be borne by them, just as similar losses have been and must be borne by many others. There is no principle of law wbicb upon tbe facts shown by all tbe evidence imposes this loss upon tbe defendant administrators or tbe surety on their bond. There is no error in tbe judgment dismissing tbe action as of nonsuit.

Affirmed.

SoheNCK, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.