Jourdan v. Dean

• Decision Date: 25 May 1896
• Docket Number: 361
• Citation: Jourdan v. Dean, 175 Pa. 599, 34 A. 958 (Pa. 1896)
• Parties: Mary M. Jourdan et al. v. Silas L. Dean et al., Appellants
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

34 A. 958

175 Pa. 599

Mary M. Jourdan et al.
v.
Silas L. Dean et al., Appellants

No. 361

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 25, 1896

Argued: May 13, 1896 [34 A. 959] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [34 A. 960] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [34 A. 961] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [34 A. 962]

Appeal, No. 361, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs' and No. 357, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. Fayette Co., September Term 1894, No. 554, for defendants non obstante veredicto. Affirmed.

Ejectment for a tract of land in South Union township.

Before BARKER, P.J., of the 47th judicial district, specially presiding: See Miller v. Thompson, infra, p. 618.

The facts appear by the following opinion of the court:

The case first stated above (the case in hand) was tried before a jury October 2, 1895, and there being no material questions of fact in dispute, the jury was directed to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, subject to the questions of law reserved in answers to the points submitted by defendants' counsel.

The second case stated as above (Miller. v. Thompson, infra, p. 618) was on the list for trial at the same term, but the facts in each case being substantially the same, and the questions of law involved identical, this case was submitted to the court in the form of a case stated, and inasmuch as we have made the same disposition of both cases, we deem it unnecessary to file separate opinions, but embody our reasons in one opinion which is made applicable to both cases.

Mrs. Ann Miller was a niece and heir at law of Dr. Corbin Amos, of Baltimore; James Logue, the administrator of his estate, purchased, with a part of her distributive share therein, thirteen acres and fifteen perches of land in South Union township, Fayette county, Pennsylvania, from Isaac Williams, on December 13 1866, taking a deed to himself in fee simple, which deed was recorded December 15, 1866. On December 18, 1866, James Logue executed, in Baltimore, a declaration of trust, reciting the Williams conveyance to him and concluding as follows:

"Now know all men by these presents that I the said James Logue, do hereby declare that I hold the above described piece or parcel of land in trust for the sole and separate use of Ann Miller of Uniontown, Fayette county, Pennsylvania, her heirs or assigns, the same to be occupied, used and enjoyed by her, or assigns, the same the to be occupied, use and enjoyed by her, her heirs or assigns, without let or hindrance from me, my heirs or assigns, or any person claiming or to claim the same under me or them, and I further declare that I will at any time upon the request in writing of the said Ann Miller or her heirs, duly authenticated by good and sufficient deed or deeds of conveyance, convey the said piece or parcel of land with the appurtenances to the said Ann Miller or her heirs, or to such other person or persons as she or they may direct."

The above instrument was recorded December 24, 1866, and at the same time and place is recorded, apparently as part of the same instrument, the following:

"Know all men by these presents that I accept the foregoing deed of trust on the terms and conditions therein named. As witness my hand and seal this 24th day of December 1866.

"ANN MILLER."

"Attest: T. A. HALDEMAN."

"Fayette County, ss:

"Before me, a justice of the peace in and for said county, came Ann Miller and acknowledged the foregoing declaration and acceptance to be her act and deed and desired that the same might be recorded as such. As witness by hand and seal this 24th day of December, 1866.

"T. A. HALDEMAN. [SEAL]

On August 24, 1869, James Logue executed a deed to Ann Miller, reciting the Williams conveyance to him and the declaration of trust with its terms, and containing the following: "And whereas, the said Ann Miller by her writing, duly acknowledged, has requested the said James Logue to convey said piece or parcel of land to her, in fee simple, to hold to her sole and separate use. Now therefore this indenture witnesseth, That the said James Logue for an (in) consideration of the premises and of the sum of one dollar to him in hand paid by the said Ann Miller at and before the sealing and delivery hereof, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted," etc., then follows a description of the land, and in the habendum clause it is stated that the same is granted to the said Ann Miller, her heirs and assigns, "to and for the sole and separate use and behoof of the said Ann Miller, and to her heirs and assigns forever." This deed was recorded August 24, 1869, the day of its execution.

On October 21, 1889, Ann Miller and her husband conveyed to John Nicolls the Connellsville vein of coal underlying the land conveyed to her as aforesaid, the deed to him reciting the deed from Williams to Logue, the declaration of trust with its full terms, also that Ann Miller, by her writing duly acknowledged, had requested the said James Logue to convey the said land to her in fee simple, to hold to her sole and separate use, and also reciting the deed from Logue to her.

On January 21, 1891, Ann Miller and her husband executed a deed to James A. Laughead for four acres and one hundred and twelve perches of land, being part of the real estate conveyed in the foregoing instruments. The only recital of previous title in that deed being a reference to the deed of Logue to Mrs. Miller, dated August 24, 1869, and its place of record.

James A. Laughead conveyed an undivided three fourths interest in said land to Dean, Modisette and Albert Laughead, the other defendants in one of these actions. Thomas Miller, the husband of Ann Miller, died May 25, 1891, and Ann Miller died January 4, 1893.

(The facts on which the defendants rely in both of these cases as a ratification of the deeds to Laughead and Nicolls will be found elsewhere in this opinion, where that branch of the case is discussed.)

The plaintiffs are two of the six heirs at law of Ann Miller, and they claim in that right; the defendants, in one case, No. 554 Sept. term, 1894, claim under the Laughead deed, and, in the other, No. 61 June term, 1895, under the Nicolls deed.

It cannot be questioned that on the face of the papers recited above, by virtue of which plaintiffs' intestate had title, they created a sole and separate use trust in Ann Miller under the rule established in Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle, 231, and maintained by a long line of authorities extending down to the present time. This rule has remained unquestioned, except in Haines v. Ellis, 24 Pa. 253, which case was overruled by the Supreme Court in Wright v. Brown, 44 Pa. 224.

The words used in the papers in evidence in this case are apt and appropriate words and create a sole and separate use trust, and it is unnecessary to refer to particular cases as authority for this assertion. The reasons for establishing sole and separate use trusts, and for so construing apt words as to sustain them, are given at length by the later Justice CLARK in MacConnell v. Lindsay, 131 Pa. on pages 484 to 491, inclusive.

It follows then that if the sole and separate use trust, created by the papers in evidence, was legally constituted, Ann Miller had no power to make the deeds to Laughead and Nicolls, and they were absolutely void and the defendants took no title thereunder. The authorities on this point are also numerous and conclusive. The defendants, however, contend that the circumstances attending the transaction between James Logue and Ann Miller were such that a sole and separate use trust was not legally created, and the papers in the case on their face establishing such a trust, the burden is on them to avoid it, and we will now refer to the reasons assigned and authorities relied on by them.

The defendants claim, first, that when James Logue purchased this property with Ann Miller's money and took the deed in his own name, without any mention therein of a sole and separate use trust for her, an equitable estate in fee simple vested in Ann Miller, which could not be divested or changed except by deed or other instrument duly executed by her and her husband.

There is no evidence in the case as to whether the administrator invested Ann Miller's money in this land of his own volition or by her direction and with her consent therefor, when five days afterwards he declared that he held it (the land) in trust for her sole and and separate use "to be occupied, used and enjoyed or her heirs and assigns," and agreed upon her request or her heirs to convey the same to her or her heirs, or to such other person or persons as she or they might direct, "by good and sufficient deed or deeds of conveyance," without any reference to the fact that it had been bought with her money; the fact that it had been so bought did not in the least affect the trust declared by apt words in the declaration of trust. It was a sole and separate use trust, subject to her right to demand a deed to herself or any other person in fee simple, as we understand it, and until such deed had been obtained, she could not convey, and her rights to the money due from Logue, as administrator of Corbin Amos, remained unaffected in the meantime -- in other words, she had no estate or interest in the land until the declaration of trust was executed and delivered, and then she only acquired an equitable...