Hazard v. Coyle

• Decision Date: 30 July 1904
• Citation: 26 R.I. 361,58 A. 987
• Parties: HAZARD v. COYLE.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

58 A. 987

26 R.I. 361

HAZARD

v. COYLE.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 30, 1904.

Assumpsit by Amos W. Hazard, as administrator, etc., against James Coyle, as executor, etc. On petition of defendant for a new trial. Granted.

Argued before TILLINGHAST, DOUGLAS, and BLODGETT, JJ.

Charles H. Page and Christopher E. Champlin, for plaintiff.

Edwards & Angell, for defendant.

BLODGETT, J. In the case of Amos W. Hazard, Administrator, v. James Coyle, Executor, reported in 22 R. I. 435, 48 Atl. 442, it was held that that matter was of equitable jurisdiction; the court saying: "It appears that the respondent's testator, George B. Hazard, conveyed certain real estate to the complainant's intestate in 1888 without consideration, upon the understanding or trust that Rowland was to hold the same for the benefit of said George; the latter taking mortgages on the property, securing promissory notes from Rowland to him, to insure the performance of the trust" Inasmuch as the property in question was the property upon which the services are claimed to have been rendered which constitute the cause of action in the present case, it is manifest that it is res adjudicata; that the relations between the parties during the period of this arrangement constituted the relation of trustee and cestui que trust And it is equally clear that compensation for such services so rendered must be sought exclusively in equity, and not at law. 2 Beach on Trustees, pp. 1684, 1685, and cases cited. An additional reason exists from the fact that the compensation of a trustee is not determined upon the principle of specific compensation for services rendered, as is the rule in an action upon a quantum meruit in assumpsit, but, rather, upon commissions on yearly income, and upon a consideration of other elements than those which are controlling in the latter form of action. 2 Beach on Trustees, p. 1687; 2 Perry on Trusts, § 919; Gould v. Hays, 25 Ala. 426-431.

Upon the termination of the trust, it is conceded that the title to a portion of the property was conveyed to James Coyle individually, and the remainder to James Coyle, trustee for George B. Hazard; and it, of course, follows that the liability, if any, for such services as were rendered by plaintiff upon the property thereafter, must be enforced against Coyle individually, or as trustee, and not against Coyle, executor. It follows that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action for services rendered during the...