Gisborn v. Charter Oak Life Ins Co of Hartford
Decision Date | 04 January 1892 |
Citation | 142 U.S. 326,35 L.Ed. 1029,12 S.Ct. 277 |
Parties | GISBORN v. CHARTER OAK LIFE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE BREWER.
On and prior to February 24, 1874, Obadiah Embody, Warren D. Heaton, William E. Miller, and Matthew T. Gisborn were the owners of the Mono mine, situated in Ophir mining district, Tooele county, in Utah territory, Gisborn owning an undivided one-third, and the others the remaining undi- vided two-thirds. On that day, Embody, Heaton, and Miller executed a deed of their undivided two-thirds to Gisborn. The consideration named and to be paid was $400,000. With the deed in his possession, he went to the city of New York to raise the money. Negotiations were there had with the firm of Allen, Stephens & Co. through William A. Stephens, a partner, and by them, on April 30th, $100,000 was advanced, for which Gisborn and Warren Hussey, who was assisting in the negotiations, executed four notes of $25,000 each to William A. Stephens, trustee, and as security Gisborn made a deed of the undivided ten-eighteenths of the Mono mining property, also, to William A. Stephens, trustee. Subsequently the negotiations were completed, the balance of the money advanced, and on May 6, 1874, Gisborn made a second deed, conveying the remaining undivided eight-eighteenths of the property to William A. Stephens, trustee. Each of these was a warranty deed.
On May 30, 1874, Stephens executed the folowing declaration of trust:
'Know all men by these presents, that whereas Matthew T. Gisborn, of the city of Salt Lake and territory of Utah, has by two certain deeds of conveyance, bearing date, respectively, April 30th, 1874, and May 6th, 1874, conveyed to me, William A. Stephens, of the city and county of New York, trustee all of the 'Mono' mining claim and lode, with the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto appertaining, situate in Dry Canyon, Ophir mining district, Tooele county, and territory aforesaid, and more particularly described in the survey and application for a patent therefor, now pending in the United States land-office:
'Now, as a part of the same transaction, I, the said William A. Stephens, trustee as aforesaid, do declare that such conveyance was made and received upon the trusts, nevertheless, and to and for the uses, interests, securities, and purposes hereinafter limited, specified, described, and declared, that is to say, upon trust to receive the issues, rents, and profits of the said premises, and to apply the same as received as follows, viz.:
'And 1, the said William A. Stephens, trustee as aforesaid, do covenant and agree to and with the said Matthew T. Gisborn, his heirs and assigns, that I shall and will duly apply all the rents, issues, and profits of said property to the uses aforesaid, in the order aforesaid, and as soon as the same shall be received by me; and, further, that as soon as said uses shall be fulfilled and discharged I will cause said conveyance of said premises to me to be canceled of record, by doing such acts and executing such instrument as may be necessary to recover or revert the title of said premises, with the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereto appertaining, to and in the said Matthew T. Gisborn, his heirs and assigns, to the same extent and estate as now held by me, as aforesaid, as trustee.
'In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand and affix my seal this 30th day of May, 1874.
'[Seal] W. A. STEPHENS, Trustee.
'J. B. ROSBOROUGH.
'JOHN T. CAINE.'
The two deeds to Stephens were recorded May 12, 1874, and this declaration of trust June 12, 1874.
The trustee entered upon his duties and mined some $20,000, when the vein which had theretofore produced abundantly suddenly ran out. Thereafter, in fruitless endeavors to find the lost vein, about $52,000 of indebtedness was created. By assignment the present appellee became the owner and holder of the claims for the original advances and the moneys thus fruitlessly expended, and on August 20, 1883, filed its bill in the district court of the third judicial district of the territory of Utah, the object of which was to charge the mining property itself with both these sums, and to have it sold to satisfy such liability. No personal judgment was asked against any party. Stephens, the trustee, Gisborn, the firm of Allen, Stephens & Co., and Hoyt Sherman, the assignee in bankruptcy of Allen, one of the firm, and Warren Hussey were made parties defendant to the bill. On May 20, 1886, a decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff for both sums, and directing that the property be sold to satisfy such amount. Gisborn appealed to the supreme court of the territory, which affirmed the decree, (15 Pac. Rep. 253,) and thereafter he appealed to this court.
Arthur Brown and Lyttleton Price, for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 330-331 intentionally omitted] A. P. Hyde, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts of the case in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
There are three principal questions in this case: First. Was the mine chargeable with the payment of the consideration money? Second. Was it also chargeable with the payment of the moneys expended in the fruitless search for the lost vein? And, third, is the cause of action barred under the statute of limitations?
With respect to the first, the contention of appellant is that Stephens, as trustee, was a purchaser of the undivided two-thirds acquired by Gisborn by his deed of 24th February, 1874, that, as such purchaser he took all the chances of the mine's productiveness, and that now, on its failure, he must pocket the loss; and, secondly, that the trust was only in reference to the rents, issues, and profits; that Stephens, having taken title for the purpose of executing such trust, has failed, and relinquished all attempts at so doing; and therefore that the title to the one-third of the mine, of which Gisborn was all the while the owner in equity, has now reverted, and a decree should have been entered directing a conveyance thereof by Stephens to him.
These matters must be settled, not by parol testimony as to the prior conversations and negotiations between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Horowitz
... ... legatee surviving life tenant is not such a "chattel ... personal" within the statute ... 120, 71 N.E. 308; Carpenter v. Cushman, ... 105 Mass. 417; Gisborn v. Charter Oak, etc., Co., ... 142 U.S. 326, 12 S.Ct. 277, 35 L.Ed ... ...
-
FIRST TRUST CO. OF LINCOLN, NEB., v. Ricketts
...and that he has a lien upon the trust property for the amount of such expenditures. In Gisborn v. Charter Oak Life Insurance Co., 142 U. S. 326, 337, 12 S. Ct. 277, 280, 35 L. Ed. 1029, the court said: "In 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1085, it is said that `the trustee is entitled to be allowed, as ag......
-
Smith v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... does a general bond and mortgage business in Miami, Dade ... County, Florida. Under its charter it has general trust ... powers, and its future, as well as that of complainant, is ... (7th Ed.) § 485; Fletcher on Corporations, § 1356; ... Gisborn v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 142 U.S. 326, ... 12 S.Ct. 277, 35 L.Ed. 1029. The trust instrument ... ...
-
Coffey v. Lawman, 7927.
...or contemplated by the mortgage or for preserving the trust property, for which he has a lien. Gisborn v. Charter Oak Life Insurance Company, 142 U.S. 326, 338, 12 S.Ct. 277, 35 L.Ed. 1029. Under this rule, the bank or its receiver would be entitled to a first lien for the payment of taxes ......