concurring.
It is with some hesitation that I concur in that part of the Court’s opinion dealing with the management and sale of the Western stock.
Mrs. Rasmuson argues in connection with this sale that it violated the express terms of the will and that the trustee had recognized this when it discussed the initial partial sale of the stock with Mrs. Rasmuson. It does seem passing strange for a trustee to first discuss a partial sale of specified stock with the beneficiary, at which time the beneficiary expressly states that she does not want any more of the stock sold, and then turn around later and sell the rest of the stock without discussing it with the beneficiary, particularly where the sale occurred shortly after the dispute over the sale of crops. This conduct might well be thought of as insensitive and arrogant. Since the trustee knew the position of Mrs. Rasmuson, it is not unreasonable to wonder why the trustee would not have first discussed the matter with her. If she would not agree to the sale, and if the trustee still felt a pressing need to consummate the sale, the courts were open to the trustee and there could have been adjudicated the question of whether or not the trustee actually did have the authority to sell this stock. A failure or refusal to take these simple steps tends to demonstrate nothing but an arbitrary display of power, hardly illustrative of the faith placed in the trustee by Mr. Hanzel.
However, we have not been cited to, nor can I find, any rule of law which gives a beneficiary such as Mrs. Rasmuson any right of control over the management of trust assets, and no clear-cut principles which would establish any mal or misfeasance in the trustee’s conclusion that the merger was tantamount to a sale. The issue before us is not whether the actions taken constituted sound business practices designed to promote trust and confidence in the trust management, but rather whether the trustee’s authority to sell this particular stock was a proper issue for disposition on summary judgment under the unique facts presented in this case. Although the question is very close, I am not persuaded on the appeal that the district court erred in any of the conclusions which he reached, includ*102ing that the will did not bind the trustee in its sale of the Western stock.
Accordingly, I limit my concurrence to simply voting to affirm Judge Bellwood’s decision, and specifically decline to join in an opinion which espouses the emotional distress principles set forth in Hatfield v. Rouse, 100 Idaho 840, 606 P.2d 944 (1980). As Chief Justice Donaldson was to note of In re Chase’s Estate, 82 Idaho 1, 348 P.2d 473 (1960) “only three judges participated in the opinion, and one was a district judge ...In re Estate of Cooke, 96 Idaho 48, 54, 524 P.2d 176, 182 (1974) (emphasis added). It may be noted that in Hatfield four were district judges.
It is my considered view that much, in fact most, of what was written in Hatfield may not withstand close examination, and for my own part, I have not heard the other members of the Court engage in any discussion as to Hatfield’s validity. Hence, until a proper time when the Court has discussed the Hatfield rules and holdings, I would feel ill at ease in blithely accepting that case as any great pronounciado of the law.