Patten v. Chamberlain

• Decision Date: 11 June 1880
• Citation: 5 N.W. 1037,44 Mich. 5
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PATTEN and another v. CHAMBERLAIN and another.

5 N.W. 1037

44 Mich. 5

PATTEN and another v. CHAMBERLAIN and another.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 11, 1880

Although by statute a parol trust in lands is void, the trustee may recognize it, and other persons, whose equities are not affected thereby, cannot interfere. Lands held in parol trust, by a father for his daughter, were exchanged for others, which he conveyed to his brother, on like trust. Creditors of the father sought to reach it. Held, that the equities of the daughter were equal to those of the creditors, and she would be protected as against their claims. The admission of the trust by the brother, in an answer in chancery, is a sufficient declaration of the trust in writing to answer the requirements of the statute of frauds.

Appeal from Detroit.

Joslyn & Freeman, for complainants.

Atkinson & Atkinson, for defendants and appellants.

COOLEY J.

We have not been brought by the evidence in this case to the conclusion reached by the judge of the superior court. We are convinced that the testimony of Francis J Chamberlain is truthful, and that it defeats the complainants' case. From this evidence it appears that some twelve years or more ago Chamberlain's first wife caused to be conveyed to him an 80-acre lot of land in St Joseph county, which she had purchased with money received from her father, on a trust, declared orally, that he would hold the same for their infant daughter, then six years of age or thereabouts. This the wife did in expectation of her speedy decease, and she actually deceased six months thereafter. In Chamberlain's hands this lot was occupied and cultivated as part of a farm of 131 acres; the remaining 51 acres being owned by himself. It was all mortgaged by him for some $2,000. Becoming embarrassed in his circumstances he made an arrangement with his brother A.H. Chamberlain whereby he exchanged the farm for certain property in Detroit, and caused the Detroit property to be conveyed to the defendant Jane E. Chamberlain, who is cousin to his daughter, on a verbal understanding that it should be held in trust for the daughter.

It is this Detroit property which complainants, as judgment creditors of Francis J. Chamberlain, seek to reach. If the farm in St. Joseph county had been in equity the property of Francis J. Chamberlain, a trust in respect to the Detroit property would have arisen in favor of his creditors when the exchange was made. Maynard v....