Craft v. Craft

• Citation: 76 So. 772,74 Fla. 262
• Parties: CRAFT et al. v. CRAFT.
• Decision Date: 02 November 1917
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

76 So. 772

74 Fla. 262

CRAFT et al. v. CRAFT.

Florida Supreme Court

November 2, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Bill by Mary Ella Craft and others against Isaac S. Craft, for an accounting and to establish a trust. Demurrer to bill sustained and bill dismissed, and complainants appeal. Order reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A general demurrer addressed to the entire bill of complaint should be overruled, if there is any equity in the allegations of the bill.

Where one conveys real property to another, without consideration the object being to promptly consummate a sale of such property by the grantee, it being expressly agreed that upon making sale of the property he will remit the purchase money received therefor to the grantor, a trust in the property is created, and the grantee holds only the bare legal title, the grantor being the beneficial owner of such property.

Where one intermingles property held in trust by him with other property, so as to make it difficult if not impossible to prove, in a court of law, the amounts received for the property so held in trust upon sales of such property, a suit for an accounting in a court of equity may be maintained.

While courts of law have jurisdiction to enforce contract demands that involve an accounting, yet courts of equity also take cognizance of cases in which contract demands between litigants involve complicated accounts, where it is not clear from the facts alleged in the particular case that the remedy at law is as full, adequate, and expeditious as it is in equity.

COUNSEL H. S. Hampton, F. J. Hampton, and H. S Phillips, all of Tampa, for appellants.

Knight Thompson & Turner, of Tampa, for appellee.

OPINION

WEST J.

The complainant Mary Ella Craft and others filed their amended bill of complaint in the circuit court of Hillsborough county on October 29, 1915, against Isaac S. Craft, the defendant.

The bill, in substance, alleges that Emma M. Craft died on the 23d day of November, 1892, leaving a will by which she devised and bequeathed to her sons Herbert M Craft, Isaac S. Craft, and Charles D. Craft, and her daughter Nona M. Grambling, share and share alike, her interest in the homestead of her husband D. Isaac Craft, deceased, the father of her said children, said homestead being located in Hillsborough county, Fla.; that thereafter said homestead was subdivided into lots and blocks, and was by agreement partitioned among said legatees, the said partition being effected by the delivery of a quitclaim deed to each of said legatees duly executed by all said legatees, except the grantee in each of said deeds, for the lots so apportioned to him or her; that pursuant to said partition there was conveyed to said Charles D. Craft lots 7, 8, 10, and 18 of said subdivision, and thereafter the defendant advised the said Charles D. Craft that he (the defendant) could sell the lots so apportioned and conveyed to said Charles D. Craft, and it was agreed that the said defendant should make sale of said lots and remit the proceeds of said sale to said Charles D. Craft; that for the purpose of authorizing and enabling the said defendant as his agent to make sale of said lots the said Charles D. Craft, his wife Mary Ella Craft joining in the conveyance, conveyed said lots to said defendant; that said conveyance was made at the request of said defendant, was without consideration, and was intended for the purpose of enabling the defendant to consummate the sale more promptly, and upon the express understanding and agreement that the defendant upon making sale of said lots would remit the purchase money received therefor to said Charles D. Craft; that thereafter the said defendant, as agent for said Charles D. Craft and Mary Ella Craft, his wife, sold and conveyed said lot 18, together with lot 19 of said subdivision, to a purchaser and received a valuable consideration therefor, and later, on February 10, 1913, as agent for said Charles D. Craft and Mary Ella Craft, his wife, sold and conveyed lots 7, 8, and 10, together with lot 9 of said subdivision; that the exact amount of the consideration received by said defendant for said lots is unknown to complainants, but they aver that said lot 18 at the time of the sale by defendant was worth between $1,800 and $2,000, and that the deed by which said lots 7, 8, and 10, together with said lot 9, was conveyed states a consideration of $4,900 received by the defendant therefor, which amount complainants say is the fair value of said lots; that although repeated requests for said information have been made by said Charles D. Craft in his lifetime, and by complainants since his death, the defendant has refused, and still refuses, to inform them as to the amounts received for said lots; that he conceals from them the true consideration received, and refuses to account to them therefor, or to pay over any part of the amounts so received, except the sum of $1,500.

The prayer of the bill is for an accounting, that the defendant may be decreed to hold the sums received for said property in trust for the complainants, and that they may have a decree against the defendant for the payment of the same, and for general relief.

To this bill the following demurrer was filed:

'This defendant, by protestation, not confessing or acknowledging all or any of the matters and things in the said amended bill of complaint contained to be true and in such manner and form as the same are therein and thereby set forth and alleged, demurs to said amended bill and for cause of demurrer shows:

'(1) That there is no equity in said amended bill.

'(2) That the complainants have failed to make or state any cause of action whatsoever in and by their said amended

...