Ainsworth v. Harding
| Decision Date | 19 October 1912 |
| Citation | 128 P. 92,22 Idaho 645 |
| Parties | ELNORA E. AINSWORTH et al., Appellants, v. P. W. HARDING, Respondent |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
EMPLOYMENT OF ATTORNEY-CONTRACT-RELATION-DUTY-TAKING TITLE TO LAND.
(Syllabus by the court.)
1. Where a power of attorney is executed by A. and others to H appointing H. attorney in fact it creates a fiduciary relation between the attorney and client.
2. Where an attorney is employed to secure and protect the interests of his client in real property, it imposes upon such attorney good faith, and requires that such duty be not violated, and such duty continues as long as the employment continues, and the obligation of good faith does not end even upon the termination of the contract of employment, but continues thereafter to the extent that if an attorney be retained to defend a particular title to real property he cannot thereafter, unless his client consent, buy the opposing title without holding it in trust for those then having the title he was employed to sustain.
3. In a case where an attorney is employed by a person to secure real property belonging to the client, and in the course of such employment, and before the employment terminates, such attorney secures a supposed interest in such property, and repudiates his fiduciary obligation, and receives in his own name the title to such property he has been employed to secure for his client, such title will be declared to be held in trust for the use and benefit of the client.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District for Bingham County. Hon. J. M. Stevens, Judge.
An action to declare a title conveying real property to be held in trust. Reversed.
Judgment reversed. Costs awarded to appellants. Petition for rehearing denied.
George E. Gray, for Appellants.
The respondent took the title in trust for the appellants, and while acting as attorney for them was forbidden, without their knowledge or consent, from acquiring any interest adverse to his clients in any property obtained by him in settlement of the shares of his clients claimed in the estate of their father. (Secs. 960, 1044, 1053, Pomeroy's Eq Jur.; Harper v. Perry, 28 Iowa 60; Shropshire v. Ryan, 111 Iowa 681, 82 N.W. 1035; Kisling v. Shaw, 33 Cal. 425, 91 Am. Dec. 646; In re Evans, 22 Utah 366, 83 Am. St. 794, 62 P. 913, 53 L. R. A. 952; Shirk v. Neible, 83 Am. St. 185-187, note; In re Darlington's Estate, 147 Pa. 624, 30 Am. St. 776, 23 A. 1046; sec. 166, Perry on Trusts; Eoff v. Irvine, 108 Mo. 378, 32 Am. St. 611, 18 S.W. 907; Henry v. Raiman, 25 Pa. 354, 64 Am. Dec. 705; Cunningham v. Jones, 37 Kan. 477, 1 Am. St. 258, 15 P. 572; Keenan v. Scott, 64 W.Va. 137, 61 S.E. 807; Stanwood v. Wishard, 134 F. 959; Gilbert v. Murphey, 103 F. 520; Crocheron v. Savage, 75 N.J. Eq. 589, 73 A. 33, 23 L. R. A., N. S., 679; Palm's Admrs. v. Howard, 129 Ky. 668, 112 S.W. 1110; Phipps v. Willis, 53 Ore. 190, 96 P. 866, 99 P. 935, 18 Ann. Cas. 119; Levara v. McNeny, 73 Neb. 414, 102 N.W. 1042.)
The authority of the respondent under his employment was broad enough to include the settlement of the affairs of the estate and the acquisition of the land in controversy for the appellants. (Wood v. Rabe, 96 N.Y. 414, 48 Am. Rep. 644; Rollins v. Mitchell, 52 Minn. 41, 38 Am. St. 519, 53 N.W. 1020; Kroll v. Coach, 45 Ore. 459, 78 P. 397, 80 P. 900.)
Respondent is bound by his declarations against himself and his recognition for nearly a year of his trust relation to the property, as shown in the testimony. (Secs. 236, 237, Jones on Evidence, 2d ed.; 16 Cyc. 1277; Work Bros. v. Kinney, 8 Idaho 771, 71 P. 477; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. 261, 38 Am. St. 667, 22 S.W. 623; Stephenson v. Kilpatrick, 166 Mo. 262, 65 S.W. 773; Belknap Hardware Co. v. Sleeth, 77 Kan. 164, 93 P. 580.)
Holden & Holden, for Respondent.
The character of evidence is insufficient to establish a trust.
Appellants had no rights in the property as a basis for establishing a trust therein. (Mandeville v. Soloman, 33 Cal. 44; Hosmer v. Duggan, 56 Cal. 257; Pittock v. Pittock, 15 Idaho 426, 98 P. 719; Lawson v. Lawson, 117 Ill. 98, 7 N.E. 84; Seymour v. Cushway, 100 Wis. 580, 69 Am. St. 961, 76 N.W. 769; Moore v. Horsley, 156 Ill. 42, 40 N.E. 323; 15 Am. & Eng. Ency. 1198; Perry on Trusts, sec. 215.)
Alleged oral declarations of respondent against himself are wholly inadmissible and ineffectual to overcome the presumption arising in favor of the terms of the written instrument-- the deed--under which respondent claims title and ownership of the land. (Feeney v. Howard, 79 Cal. 527, 12 Am. St. 162, 21 P. 984, 4 L. R. A. 826; 2 Jones, Evidence, 2d ed., 272, 353-354; Dodge v. Trust Co., 93 U.S. 379, 23 L.Ed. 920; Bowen v. Chase, 98 U.S. 254, 25 L.Ed. 47; Gilbert v. Odum, 69 Tex. 671, 7 S.W. 510; Gibney v. Marchay, 34 N.Y. 301; McKinnon v. Meston, 104 Mich. 642, 62 N.W. 1014; John Hancock etc. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 34 Mich. 41; Sherman v. Sandell, 106 Cal. 375, 39 P. 797.)
Respondent was not disqualified from purchasing the land, because the same did not belong to appellants, who had no interests therein.
Appellants, in no event, are entitled to equitable relief by reason of their laches in bringing this action, and are equitably estopped because of their failure to institute the same until after it became known that respondent, by great effort and expense, had been able to create property in the lands out of a labyrinth of defective titles. (Williams v. Maxwell, 45 W.Va. 298, 31 S.E. 909; 1 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., sec. 419; Fountain v. Lewiston National Bank, 11 Idaho 451, 474, 83 P. 505.)
This is a suit in equity instituted by the appellants, Elnora E. Ainsworth, Ida Mulheron and Anna M. Adams, against the respondent, P. W. Harding, for the purpose of decreeing the title held by the respondent under a deed to be in trust for the use and benefit of appellants to certain real property located in Bingham county in the state of Idaho.
The cause was tried in the district court and findings were made and a decree entered in favor of respondent. This appeal is from the judgment.
In the complaint filed in the district court by the appellants the cause of action is alleged as follows: First, that on or about the 9th day of April, 1905, at Grangeville, in the state of Idaho, one Caleb Squibb died intestate, seised and possessed of a large estate consisting of both personal and real property situated in the counties of Idaho and Bingham in the state of Idaho, and at his death left surviving the plaintiffs, daughters, and two sons, one Joseph Squibb and one William Squibb, as sole and only heirs; that the defendant is a regularly admitted and practicing attorney at law and a member of the bar of the state of Iowa, engaged in the practice of his profession as such in said state and elsewhere; that in the month of July, 1906, the respondent was employed by the plaintiffs as an attorney at law and attorney in fact and undertook such employment in behalf of the plaintiffs to look after, protect and recover for the appellants any property rights accruing to them by reason of the death of Caleb Squibb, located in the state of Idaho; that in pursuance of such employment, and by reason thereof, and in settlement of the rights of plaintiffs and their interest in said estate, the respondent secured, on or about the 30th day of July, 1906, at Grangeville, in the state of Idaho, a deed of conveyance from Joseph Squibb and William Squibb, sons and heirs with the appellants of the estate of Caleb Squibb, of certain lands in Bingham county, state of Idaho. This deed was duly filed for record on the 6th of August, 1906, in the office of the county recorder and is made a part of the complaint; that it is also alleged that while the defendant took such conveyance of land in his own name as grantee, that in truth and in fact the title so obtained by him was in trust for the sole use and benefit of the plaintiffs as heirs at law of the estate of Caleb Squibb, deceased; that the defendant disregarded his duty and obligation as such attorney for these plaintiffs, and in violation of the trust and confidence reposed in him and in violation of the trust relation conferred upon him by the conveyance, has without any right or authority ever...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson Land Co. v. Lynn
...101 U.S. 494, 25 L.Ed. 1065; Downard v. Hadley, 116 Ind. 131, 18 N.E. 457; Sutherland v. Reeve, 41 Ill.App. 295; Ainsworth v. Harding, 22 Idaho 645, 128 P. 92; Winterberg v. Van de Vorste, 19 N.D. 417, 122 866; Boschker v. Van Beek, 19 N.D. 104, 122 N.W. 338; Johnson v. Knappe, 24 S.D. 407,......
-
Marston v. Catterlin
... ... 104; Galbraith v. Elder, 8 Watts (Pa.), 81; ... Henry v. Raiman, 25 Pa. St., 354; Smith v ... Brotherline, 62 Pa. St. 461; Ainsworth v ... Harding, 22 Idaho 645; Davis v. Smith, 43 Vt ... 269; 39 Cyc. 172. (2) When the defendant Catterlin disposed ... of the Bates County land, ... ...
-
Reid v. Keator
... ... Trask , 28 Idaho 642, 156 P. 1136); or by violation of ... confidence and trust ( Hanger v. Hess , 49 Idaho 325, ... 288 P. 160; Ainsworth v. Harding , 22 Idaho 645, 128 ... P. 92); or by fraud, actual or constructive ( Davenport v ... Burke , 30 Idaho 599, 167 P. 481; Mountain Home ... ...
-
State ex rel. Moore v. Scroggie
...be imposed for her benefit against the proceeds payable to Lyon and Bell to assure payment of her share. See, e.g., Ainsworth v. Harding, 22 Idaho 645, 128 P. 92 (1912). She argues that Lyons initially represented her in the divorce action and during the negotiations with Jesse over divisio......