Appeal of Cross and Gault
| Decision Date | 02 May 1881 |
| Citation | 97 Pa. 471 |
| Parties | Appeal of Anna J. Cross and A. W. Gault, Guardian, etc. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester county: Of January Term 1881. No. 251.
R. Jones Monaghan, for the appellants.—The auditor found in our favor the facts that the assignor, Woodward, received the minors' money as their guardian, and invested it in buildings on his farm, intending it at the time as an investment for the benefit of the minors, supposing the same to be safer than an investment in bonds or stocks. The identity of the fund was clearly traced. In such case the converted property will be held in its new form liable to the rights of the cestui que trust. This principle has been applied in the distribution of an assigned estate, so as to permit the ward of an assignor to claim funds belonging to her, but loaned by her guardian in his own name, which had been received by his assignees: Rossiter's Appeal, 2 Barr 371. A similar rule has been applied in Marshall v. Hoff, 1 Watts 440; Robb's Appeal, 5 Wright 48; Sadler's Appeal, 6 Norris 158; Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. King, 7 P. F. Smith 205; Harrisburg Bank v. Tyler, 3 W. & S. 378; Sheetz v. Marks, 2 Pearson's Decis. 302. The resulting trust which we claim is not against the land, but against the proceeds of the land, into which it has been reconverted. Even if in strictness there is no technical resulting trust, we have an equitable charge or lien on the fund for our trust moneys which have been traced into it: 2 Perry on Trusts, sect. 837; 2 Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 1265; Bispham's Eq., sect. 86; Wallace v. Duffield, 2 S. & R. 528, per GIBSON, J.
W. B. Waddell and A. P. Reid, for the appellees.—No resulting trust can arise except for fraud in obtaining title, or from the payment of purchase-money when the title is acquired: Barnet v. Dougherty, 8 Casey 371; Rogers v. Murray, 3 Paige 390-398; Botsford v. Burr, 2 Johns. Ch. 405, 414-415; Nixon's Appeal, 13 P. F. Smith 279; Bickel's Appeal, 5 Norris 204. The English doctrine of equitable lien has never been engrafted upon our jurisprudence: Hepburn v. Snyder, 3 Barr 72.
The money in court for distribution was raised from the sale of the real estate of John Y. Woodward, which he had previously assigned for the benefit of his creditors. This fund was claimed by judgment-creditors to whom it was awarded by the court below; it was also claimed by the appellants, for whom Woodward had been appointed guardian sometime in the year 1865. Their claim upon the fund arises in this manner: the account of Woodward as guardian was settled in the Orphans' Court on the 28th June 1880, and he was found to be indebted to the estate of the minors in the sum of $1269.19, which sum he was unable to pay. Furthermore, the auditor has found that Woodward used this money of his wards in the improvement of the real estate from which the fund for distribution was raised. The claim now put forward by the appellants is, that as Woodward used these trust-moneys belonging to them, in the improvement of the land which produced the money in controversy, the land itself, and hence the fund raised from it, was and is impressed with that trust, and that it ought in the first place to be used in the liquidation of their claim. Clearly, if the premise thus stated be correct, the conclusion follows as of course, for it is too well settled for discussion, that the law will follow the trust fund through any number of transmutations if it can be recognised clearly in those transmutations. But the auditor and the court below thought that this money of the appellants was not so impressed upon the Woodward lands; it certainly was not used in the purchase of those lands....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tanney v. Tanney
...... Argued:. November 7, 1893. . . . Appeal, No. 265, Oct. T., 1893, by defendant, Lewis H. Tanney, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Allegheny ... Sill, 95 Pa. 380; Morrell v. Trotter, 39 Leg. Int. 256; Maul v. Rider, 51 Pa. 383; Cross's. Ap., 97 Pa. 471; Hollinshead's Ap., 103 Pa. 158;. Clark v. Trindle, 52 Pa. 492; Ashurst's Ap., ......
-
Hutchinson v. Kline
...Lewis v. Robinson, 10 Watts, 354; Coxe v. Gibson & Hathaway, 27 Pa. 160; Brickell v. Earley, 115 Pa. 473; Bickel's App., 86 Pa. 204; Cross's App., 97 Pa. 471; Blyholder Gilson, 18 Pa. 134; McVay v. McVay, 10 A. Repr. 178; Jackson's App., 8 A. Repr. 870; Silliman v. Haas, 151 Pa. 52; Martin ......
-
Kauffman et al. v. Kauffman et al.
...v. Douds, 213 Pa. 221; Lancaster Trust Co. v. Long, 220 Pa. 499; Hayes's App., 123 Pa. 110; Barnet v. Dougherty, 32 Pa. 371; Cross's App., 97 Pa. 471. B. D. Oliensis, for appellee.—When a person takes title to property with an understanding that he is to Page 273 it for the benefit of anoth......
-
Schrager v. Cool
...Welford v. Herrington, 74 Pa. 311; McDonough v. O'Niel, 113 Mass. 92; Bryan v. Douds, 213 Pa. 221; Barnet v. Dougherty, 32 Pa. 371; Cross's App., 97 Pa. 471; Benjamin v. 100 Pa. 33; Everhart's App., 106 Pa. 349; Moran v. Munhall, 204 Pa. 242. Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, MESTREZAT, POTTER a......