“all lawful means with reasonable promptness to recover the debt and prevent loss to the estate, which a man of fair judgment, reasonable care and prudence, would take under such circumstances.” The circumstances under which the trustee’s actions are to be judged must be considered “under the rule that when one knows and what one in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence ought to know are regarded as equivalent in the law.” If it becomes clear or should have become clear that the investment is no longer proper for a trust, it is the duty of the trustee to dispose of it within a reasonable time. (Citations omitted.) Pub. Serv. Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (1983), 577 F.Supp. 92, 104. See, also, Citizens & S. Natl. Bank v. Haskins (1985), 254 Ga. 131, 135-136, 327 S.E.2d 192 (<HOLDING>); Shriners Hosps. for Crippled Children v.
holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust holding that a trustee properly withheld trust payments owed to a prior trustee who had misappropriated trust funds holding that trust beneficiaries have no authority to maintain an action as third party beneficiaries of contracts between the trustee and agents of the trustee concerning the internal affairs of the trust holding that although a trustee is not required to watch the ticker as a speculator would    the question of the quality of judgment in holding or disposing of trust assets    coupled with evidence of failure to review or monitor the trust estate and refusal to meet with cotrustees presents a jury question on whether or not the trustee breached his duty holding that the trustee of a nominee trust functions more as an agent than as a true trustee