Hogg v. Hoag

• Decision Date: 08 March 1897
• Citation: 80 F. 595
• Parties: HOGG v. HOAG et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

80 F. 595

HOGG v. HOAG et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

March 8, 1897

Charles W. Gauld, Arthur C. Rounds, Charles Bulkley Hubbell, and William L. Snyder, for plaintiff.

William Pinkney Whyts, for defendants.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

The decision of this motion lies within a much narrower compass than the argument. The situation is this: A trust was created by written agreement of individuals. By virtue of such trust one Coe, now deceased, held certain property, real and personal. The personal property is in this district; the real estate is in Oregon. The legal title to such real estate at Coe's death was in him. All parties interested in such trust, or in its continuance, or in its funds, are parties to this suit. Complainant asked the court to appoint a trustee to continue the administration of the trust. Defendants resisted the application, contended that the trust terminated on the death of Coe, and that the property should be distributed to those entitled to it. This court refused to pass upon the question whether or not the trust had terminated, upon preliminary application, reserving it for final hearing. The personal property in this district however, was in the possession of the executors of Coe, who wished to be relieved from its custody. An order was therefore made appointing a receiver of such property, to hold the same until termination of the suit. It now appears that the real estate in Oregon needs some one to conserve it pending this litigation; that portions of it have been, or are about to be, sold for taxes; and that portions of it could be rented if some one had authority so to do. The Oregon courts seem powerless to act, for the reason that nearly all the parties reside elsewhere, and no suit has been brought there. The receiver's appointment here gives him no title to the Oregon lands. Inasmuch as no statute of Oregon to the contrary is shown, it may be assumed that the legal title to the real estate there passed to Coe's children, to be held by them until a new trustee might be appointed, or the property turned over to the beneficiaries. The children of Coe do not wish to be burdened with this property, and there is no reason why they should be. No new trustee should be appointed until it is determined at final hearing whether or not there is any trust to administer, but in the meanwhile there should be some one authorized to look after the property.

It is...