Clement v. Cates

• Decision Date: 11 June 1887
• Citation: 4 S.W. 776
• Parties: CLEMENT <I>v.</I> CATES and others.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

4 S.W. 776

CLEMENTv.

CATES and others.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 11, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Prairie county. In chancery.

J. E. Gatewood, for appellant. C. E. Warner, for appellees.

BATTLE, J.

In January, 1852, Benjamin A. Boydson died seized and possessed of certain land in Prairie county, in this state. He died intestate, leaving surviving him Jane Boydson, his widow, and Joseph, Sarah Ann, and Andrew Jackson Boydson, his only heirs and distributees at law. Jane, his widow, intermarried with Willis Price, who on the seventh of October, 1857, after his marriage, attempted to convey the land by warranty deed to James A. Hunter. Price's wife joined with him in the execution of the deed, and thereby undertook to relinquish her dower in the land to Hunter. On the twenty-sixth of November following, Hunter conveyed to Samuel Clement, who took possession of the land, and occupied it until some time in January, 1865, when he died intestate, leaving Sarah Clement, his widow, and John C. Clement, Martha Cates, and Judy Davis, who were his children, his only heirs him surviving. Sarah Clement continued in possession of the land, after the death of her husband, until the latter part of 1871, when she died. In December 1867, John C. Clement went to his mother, Sarah Clement, and lived with her on the land until her death. Judy Davis also lived on the land with them for a short time, and then died intestate, leaving John and Annie Davis her only children and heirs surviving. On the thirty-first of January, 1872, after the death of his sister Judy Davis, John C. became the guardian of John and Annie Davis, who at that time were, respectively, three and five years old; and remained such guardian until 1881, when he was discharged. On the twenty-second of February, 1872, John C. purchased of Andrew J. and Sarah Ann Boydson their interest in the land. After this he remained in the possession of the land, improved, paid taxes on it, and enjoyed exclusively the rents and profits arising therefrom, and at the time this action was instituted was using, holding, and claiming it as his own. Martha Cates, and John and Annie Davis, by their next friend, brought this action against John C. Clement, in the Prairie circuit court, and asked in their complaint that the purchase of defendant be declared a purchase in trust for the use and benefit of the parties to the action, and that the defendant be declared a trustee for plaintiffs, and be charged with the rents and profits, and that the land be sold for partition. The defendant answered. After hearing the evidence, the court decreed and declared that the defendant held the land in trust for plaintiffs, and that he and they were joint owners thereof, and appointed a master, and directed him to take proof, and state an account of the rental value of the land for 1872, and every year thereafter, and charge the defendant with such rent, and also ascertain the value of the improvements made on the land, and the taxes paid on it by the defendant, and credit him therewith, and with the amount paid for the land when he purchased it. No order was made for the sale or partition of the land. Defendant appealed.

The law forbids a trustee, and all other persons occupying a fiduciary or quasi fiduciary position, from taking any personal advantage touching the thing or subject as to which such fiduciary position exists; or, as expressed by another: "Wherever one person is placed in such relation to another, by the act or consent of that other, or the act of a third person, or of the law, that he becomes interested for him, or interested with him, in any subject of property or business, he is prohibited from acquiring rights in that subject antagonistic to the person with whose interest he has become associated." If such a person acquires an interest in property as to which such a relation exists, he holds it as a trustee for the benefit of those in whose interest he was prohibited from purchasing, to the extent of the prohibition. This rule applies to tenants in common by descent with the same force and reason as it does to persons standing in a direct fiduciary relation to others; for they stand, by operation of law, in a confidential relation to each other, as to the joint property, and the...