Humphreys v. Butler

• Citation: 11 S.W. 479
• Parties: HUMPHREYS <I>v.</I> BUTLER.
• Decision Date: 27 April 1889
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

11 S.W. 479

HUMPHREYSv.

BUTLER.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 27, 1889.

Appeal from Pulaski chancery court; D. W. CARROLL, Chancellor.

T. J. Oliphent, for appellant. Blackwood & Williams, for appellee.

BATTLE, J.

Edward Johnigan enlisted in the service of the United States during the late war between the states, and died in the service, and before the close of the war. At the time he enlisted he had a wife, Clarissa by name, and when he died he left her surviving. He also had a brother, Jacob, who survived him. In 1871, Jacob, without the knowledge, consent, or authority of his brother's widow, collected from the United States $149.52 as bounty due his brother Edward, and invested it in a certain lot in Little Rock, which he purchased, and which cost him $400. Clarissa married one Butler. Having discovered Jacob's collection and investment, they brought this action to divest him of the title to this lot, and to vest it in Clarissa, or to recover a decree for the amount collected in favor of Clarissa, and to have it decreed a lien on the lot, and the lot sold to satisfy the same. The amount due Edward as bounty at the time of his death rightfully belonged to his widow. There is no controversy about Jacob having collected it, or of the amount collected, and we think that the evidence clearly shows that he invested it in the lot. But it is insisted that he stood in no fiduciary relation to Clarissa, and that when he collected the money due her, and invested it in a town lot, no trust resulted to her. It is true that he stood in no relation of confidence or trust to her, but it is not necessary that such a relation should have existed to entitle her to relief against the lot. Equity created a trust in invitum out of the collection and the investment of her money in the lot, with the view of subjecting the lot to the purposes of indemnity and recompense. "One of the most common cases," says Judge Story, "in which a court of equity acts upon the ground of implied trust in invitum is where a party receives money which he cannot conscientiously withhold from another." And he states it to be a general principle that "whenever the property has been wrongfully misapplied, or a trust fund has been wrongfully converted into another species of property, if its identity can be traced, it will be held in its new form liable to the rights of the original owner or the cestui que trust." 2 Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 1255, 1258. In 2 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence the author says: "In general, whenever the legal title to property, real or personal, has been acquired by actual fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, or through undue influence, duress, taking advantage of one's weakness or necessities, or through any other similar means, or under any other similar circumstances, which render it unconscientious for the holder of the legal title to retain or enjoy the beneficial interest, equity impresses a constructive trust on the property thus acquired, in favor of one who is truly and equitably entitled to the same, although he may perhaps never have had any legal estate therein; and a court of equity has jurisdiction to reach the property in the hands of either the original wrong-doer, or in...