Mathews v. Stephenson

• Decision Date: 10 November 1847
• Citation: 6 Pa. 496
• Parties: MATHEWS <I>v.</I> STEPHENSON.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

6 Pa. 496

MATHEWS v. STEPHENSON.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 7, 1847.

November 10, 1847.

Oct. 7.

IN error from the Common Pleas of Mercer county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Pearson and Sullivan.—There could be no doubt that the principals would be liable under an agency such as this, (Story on Agency, §§ 126, 127, 58, 60, 61, 97; Martzell v. Stauffer, 3 Penna. Rep. 398,) but here the principals are minors. But the owner of the property, when conveying it away, subjected it to this agency and its consequences; there was therefore a competent authority to bind the property, though not the persons of the beneficial owners. The power to mould the judgment appears from Peries v. Aycinena, 6 Watts & Serg. 243.

Stewart and Maxwell, contrà.—A guardian or trustee cannot charge the fund; Forster v. Fuller, 6 Mass. Rep. 53; nor is the suit rightly against him; it should rather be against the creator of the trust, who alone is the principal. But he had no intention to subject himself or the fund to the contracts of the agent, who had already by his misfortunes become insolvent.

Nov. 10. COULTER, J.

Equity is part and parcel of the law of the state. The courts will therefore adopt chancery rules to prevent a failure of justice; and when the common-law forms are inadequate to do justice, the courts may, in order to reach the equity of a case, so mould and adapt their forms to the circumstances, as to accomplish that purpose; Jordan v. Cooper, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 578. Many instances in our judicial history might be enumerated, both in the adaptation of the declaration and pleas, and also in the form of the judgment; but they will readily occur to the mind of the practitioner in the profession. As the fund mentioned and described with the deed of trust from Oliver Stephenson to Thomas Stephenson, as also the real and personal estate therein specified, is undoubtedly liable for the debts contracted by the trustee and agent on the faith and responsibility of that fund, in pursuance of the business directed to be carried on for the benefit of the cestui que trust, according to the directions of the deed, (7 Watts, 547,) the only question is in what mode it can be reached in our courts. In chancery, where the remedy would have been found in England on a contract of this nature, all the parties must be named. In a bill in chancery, all persons interested must be parties either as plaintiffs or defendants: as it is the constant aim of a court of equity to do complete justice to all persons interested and thereby prevent further litigation. Where any person is out of the jurisdiction of the court who should be made a party, and that is stated in the bill, the court will in most cases proceed without him; and if the possession or power over the property is in the other parties, the court will act upon the bill; 2 Maddox, Chan. 177; otherwise a decree would be imperfect: all the parties not being before the court; 2 Grant's Chancery Practice. In adopting the chancery principle in order to reach the fund, we must adhere as near as possible to the practice of chancery in relation to the parties who ought to be before the court: because much of the justice of the case may depend upon them all having an opportunity of being heard. Thomas Stephenson, the trustee and agent who managed the fund, having died after the debt was contracted and after the institution of this suit, Lewis Weaver, who was appointed guardian of the beneficiaries by the Orphans' Court, was substituted in his stead. This was all right and proper, because he was the proper person to answer and be heard on behalf of the minors. But Oliver...