Frue v. Loring

• Decision Date: 09 September 1876
• Citation: 120 Mass. 507
• Parties: William B. Frue v. Elisha T. Loring
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

120 Mass. 507

William B. Frue v. Elisha T. Loring

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 9, 1876

Suffolk. Bill in equity. The defendant demurred for want of equity, and on the ground that the plaintiff had a plain adequate and complete remedy at law. The case was heard on the bill and demurrer by Wells, J., and reserved for the consideration of the full court. The material allegations of the bill appear in the opinion.

Demurrer sustained.

C. A Welch, for the defendant.

B. F. Thomas, for the plaintiff, cited Hobart v. Andrews, 21 Pick. 526, 533; Raynham Congregational Society v. Trustees of Fund in Raynham, 23 Pick. 148, 153; Burlingame v. Hobbs, 12 Gray 367; Safford v. Rantoul, 12 Pick 233; Bryant v. Russell, 23 Pick. 508, 521; Ward v. Lewis, 4 Pick. 518; Wright v. Dame, 22 Pick. 55; Bowditch v. Banuelos, 1 Gray 220, 229; Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 Pet. 495, 503.

Colt J. Devens & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

The equity jurisdiction of this court, by the terms of the statute, embraces suits and proceedings for enforcing and regulating the execution of trusts, whether the trusts relate to real or personal estate, subject to the general provision which excludes such jurisdiction where the parties have a plain, adequate and complete remedy at common law. Gen. Sts. c. 113, § 2.

The plaintiff seeks to charge the defendant as trustee for the appropriation to his own use of certain shares of stock held in trust. The bill alleges an agreement between the parties and certain other persons named for the purchase of mining lands on Lake Superior and the formation of mining corporations; the subsequent formation of two companies, and the conveyance to them of the land purchased; the allotment of shares among the proprietors; and the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff's shares should be issued to the defendant as trustee, to be held by him until the assessments, to become due from the plaintiff thereon, were paid. It then alleges the plaintiff's payment of more than was due on his shares, referring to annexed exhibits for the state of the account; and charges the defendant with the wrongful sale of the shares and the appropriation of the proceeds. It expressly waives the defendant's oath to his answer and seeks no discovery as incidental to the relief. The prayer is for an account, for payment of the balance due over the assessments paid, and payment of the highest value of the stock since the plaintiff became entitled to it with all dividends, and for general relief. The question is whether the bill shows a case in which there is not an equally effectual remedy at law.

It is plain, from the allegations in the bill, that the only matter in controversy is the plaintiff's title to the shares of stock in question, and his right to claim that the defendant shall make their value good to him. He does not seek to obtain the control of trust property in the possession of the trustee; but he avers that it has been sold, and we assume that it is now held by the purchaser by good title discharged of the trust. His claim is reduced to a claim for compensation in damages for the conversion of property of which he claims to have been owner. His right will be determined by settling his title to the property. He seeks no discovery, and there is nothing in the case to show that his right to compensation may not be the same in measure, and that his title may not be as completely and adequately enforced at law as in equity. The jurisdiction in equity extends, it is said, equally to express and implied trusts; Wright v. Dame, 22 Pick. 55; and yet it has never been contended that it embraced all such cases of implied trust as arise out of the relations created by a pledge or mortgage of personal property, or a transfer of choses in action, or shares in a corporation to be held as collateral security for the payment of money, or which might arise between principal and agent, or between bailor and bailee, unless there were facts alleged showing either the need of a discovery in support of the bill, or relief in some form peculiar to courts of equity. In none of the cases cited by the plaintiff, in which the objection has been taken by demurrer, will be found a clear departure from this rule. In most of them an account of the trust, or a discovery, or a delivery of trust property, was prayed for. Hobart v. Andrews, 21 Pick. 526. Raynham...