Emerson v. Galloupe

• Citation: 158 Mass. 146,32 N.E. 1118
• Parties: EMERSON et al. v. GALLOUPE et al.
• Decision Date: 23 January 1893
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

158 Mass. 146

32 N.E. 1118

EMERSON et al. v. GALLOUPE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 23, 1893

COUNSEL

G.A.O. Ernst, for plaintiffs.

J.B Lord, for defendants.

OPINION

BARKER J.

The plaintiffs and the defendant Galloupe orally agreed to attempt to purchase the defendant Breed's estate, at a price not to exceed $50,000. Each plaintiff was to furnish one quarter and Galloupe one half of the purchase money, and a syndicate, in which the plaintiffs were each to have one quarter interest, and Galloupe was to control one half, was to be formed for the development of the land. Galloupe undertook to make the purchase, and, in violation of his agreement with the plaintiffs, made the negotiation in his own behalf, and obtained an agreement for a conveyance to himself for the sum of $42,000, of which $30,000 might remain upon mortgage. He informed the plaintiffs that he had made the purchase, but concealed from them the price, and the fact that the agreement was in his own name, and led them to believe that the purchase had been made pursuant to his agreement with them, and for the sum of $48,000. Giving them to understand that he was proceeding to form the syndicate, he then drew up in his own handwriting and exhibited to them a form of agreement for subscribers to a syndicate, in which the equity of the estate was capitalized at $18,000, and the further sum of $2,000 was added for the expense of constructing a street and other incidental expenses, and in which, of the $20,000 thus made up, one fourth was allotted to each of the plaintiffs. This form of agreement contained the name of Galloupe in his own handwriting as one of the syndicate, but was not otherwise signed; and later he refused to carry out its conditions, and destroyed the paper. Upon these facts the presiding justice ruled that there was no sufficient writing to constitute a valid agreement between Galloupe and the plaintiffs, nor any sufficient declaration of trust, and entered a final decree dismissing the bill. Galloupe repudiated and violated his agreement with the plaintiffs from the outset, and made the negotiation with Breed for himself alone. He has not acted as trustee for the plaintiffs, nor as their agent, but solely for himself. The plaintiffs have no rights founded on anything which he has done for them, but must recover, if at all, on the fact that, having agreed to act in part for them he has violated that agreement, and acted solely for himself. The agreement was within the statute of frauds, and no trust in the equitable title acquired by Galloupe can be enforced unless a trust arose or resulted by implication of law. Pub.St. c. 78, § 1, cl. 4. It has been suggested that such cases fall within the exception of trusts which may arise or result by implication of law; but we cannot...