Frank v. Morley's Estate
| Citation | 106 Mich. 635,64 N.W. 577 |
| Parties | FRANK v. MORLEY'S ESTATE. |
| Decision Date | 08 October 1895 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Robert E. Frazer, Judge.
Claim by Dolly Frank against the estate of William B. Morley deceased. On its disallowance by the commissioners, claimant appealed to the circuit court, and, the trial resulting in her favor, the administrator brings error. Reversed.
Fraser & Gates (Edwin F. Coneley, of counsel), for appellant.
Atkinson Vance & Wolcott, for appellee.
William B. Morley died intestate on the 15th of June, 1891. The claimant filed a claim before commissioners on claims for $20,000 and interest, claimed to have been intrusted to the deceased on or about the 10th of January, 1880. The claim was disallowed by the commissioners, and an appeal taken to the circuit court, where, on a trial before a jury, claimant recovered $23,000. The administrator brings the case here on error.
Claimant made her case by producing as a witness her sister, who testified: That on the 10th of January, 1880, claimant was delivered of a bastard child in the city of Detroit. That two or three days after the birth of the child the deceased came to 300 Woodward avenue, where claimant was confined, and gave the claimant $20,000 in bank bills, which he stated was for the support of the child. That claimant retained the money for a few days. That he then wanted the money back, and said he would invest it. She did not want to give it back to him and he insisted on it, and she gave it back. She wanted him to invest it in a boat property, and he said it would be a scandal, and he would invest it in a better way, or some other way. There was also testimony tending to show that, from time to time, deceased had paid money to claimant. On one occasion he purchased a small farm for her near Monroe, paying the consideration and taking the deed in her name. That on various occasions he paid sums ranging from $5 and $10 up to $343. There was never any account between the parties prior to the death of Mr. Morley, and never any demand for an accounting by the claimant. There was testimony which tended somewhat to corroborate the testimony of the claimant, and there was testimony offered on behalf of the estate which tended to show a course of dealing between claimant and deceased inconsistent with the claim which is now made. There was also testimony tending to show that, during all the period from 1880 to 1891, illicit relations existed between claimant and defendant.
It is contended that the claimant has not sought the proper forum. Defendant's first request was as follows: "If the case made by the claimant correctly shows the relation of the deceased to the claimant in respect to the $20,000 charged to have been delivered by the claimant to the deceased in June, 1880, the deceased did not become the debtor of the claimant, but rather the trustee, for the purpose of investment; and, there being no assumpsit, the claimant cannot enforce her rights in the premises by a proceeding before commissioners on claims, or by an appeal from the decision of such commissioners." This was refused, and the court charged the jury that if she (the claimant) transferred the money back to William B. Morley for the purpose of investing for her, and he did so take the money into his possession, and promised to invest it for her and account for it to her, if they should believe that these facts were established by a preponderance of the evidence in this case, then this would be a just claim against the estate of William B. Morley, provided some payment had been made on account of the claim within the six years preceding the death of Morley. It is generally true that equity alone has jurisdiction over proceedings to enforce a trust, but, in case there has been an account stated, a court of law may take cognizance. See Perry, Trusts, � 843. If the trustee has mingled the estate with his, and has kept no account of the same, the cestui que trust may proceed against him as a common debtor, and charge him with the value of the estate, with interest added. Morris v. Wallace, 45 Am. Dec. 642; Coffin v. Bramlitt, 42 Miss. 194. And where, as in this case, the trust estate consisted solely of money, so that nothing remained to be done but the payment of the money, no good reason is perceived why an action at law should not lie. Lathrop v. Bampton, 31 Cal. 17; Perry, Trusts, � 843; Sewall v. Patch, 132 Mass. 326. See, also, Catlin v. Birchard, 13 Mich. 110.
2. Deceased was in 1891 at Rochester, N. Y., receiving medical treatment. For the purpose of corroborating her statement plaintiff offered in evidence a letter dated April 16, 1891, containing the following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial