McCandless, J. B. & S. v. Warner
| Decision Date | 14 November 1885 |
| Citation | 26 W.Va. 754 |
| Parties | MCCANDLESS, J. B. & S. v. WARNER, et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted Jun. 19, 1885.
1. If a party obtain a deed for property, for which he has paid a valuable consideration, and if sec. 7 of the English statute of frauds substantially exists in this State, although in terms it is omitted from our statute, it may be shown, that such party holds the property so conveyed in trust for another. (p. 780.)
2. Such trust need not be created in writing but must be manifested and proved in writing by the party enabled by law to declare the trust; and such writing must show both the existence of the trust and the terms thereof. (p. 780.)
3. The writing to prove such trust need not be made at the time the trust is created, but may be made at any time thereafter, and it is not necessary that it be addressed to the cestui que trust or to any other person. (p. 780.)
4. Letters written to any one after the creation of the trust in which the trust and the terms thereof are admitted and disclosed, are a sufficient declaration of such trust within the statute. (p. 780.)
5. It is not necessary, that the trust and the terms thereof shall all appear in one letter or other writing, but if they can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from a number of letters or from one or more letters and other writings, it is sufficiently proved. (p. 780.)
6. In ascertaining the meaning of such writings the court will, if necessary, look to the surrounding circumstances. (p. 780.)
7. An express trust need no consideration to support it. (p. 782.)
Quaere. Is sec. 7 of the English statute of frauds although in terms omitted from our statute, substantially in effect in this State, and can a trust like that shown in this case be proved by parol evidence?
8. A decree although erroneous will not be reversed unless to the prejudice of the party complaining thereof. (p. 782.)
9. After a party has denied an express trust, in a suit to have the trust declared, and after the trust and the terms thereof are in writing proved to the satisfaction of the court, it is proper to put the trust property into the hands of a receiver. (p. 782.)
Johnson, President, furnishes the following statement of the case:
The plaintiffs filed their bill in March 1882, in the circuit court of Wood county against Z. Warner, W. H. Wolfe and Samuel Stewart. The bill alleges, that J. B. McCandless was the owner of one undivided half of oil-lease No. 58 at White Oak in said county, and that afterwards Susannah McCandless the wife of said J. B. McCandless, sold her house and lot in Parkersburg, her own separate property, and bought the other undivided half of said lease; that the property was valuable for the petroleum thereon, which was of a superior grade; that in operating said oil-lease defendants had incurred debts, for the payment of which on January 9, 1876, they executed a deed of trust to Samuel Stewart, trustee, conveying said leasehold property. The debts to be secured are mentioned in a schedule attached to said deed, and amount to about $2,500.00; the said debts before the sale under said trust amounted to about $1,200.00.
Complainants had great confidence in Rev. Z. Warner, who was pastor of the United Brethren Church in Parkersburg, of which they were members, and especially did the complainant Susannah McCandless so confide in him and a short time before said sale sought an interview with him, for the purpose of seeking his advice and suggestions, touching their financial troubles and threatening embarrassments. Complainants explained to him fully the situation of their affairs, and he expressed for them his profound sympathy, and promised to take their matters under advisement and do, if he could, something for their relief. At a subsequent interview with the Rev. Mr. Warner, he reported the result of his deliberations touching the premises, and said he could, as he thought, so manage, as to save to complainant, Susannah McCandless her half of said property, and expressed himself particularly anxious to do so inasmuch as the debt for which her property was liable was not a debt of her contracting. He then proposed to become the purchaser himself at the trust-sale, and to buy in one half of the property for and on behalf of said Susannah McCandless. He told Susannah that he could get Bro. D. Needham, who was mentioned in the schedule, and whose debt amounted to $385.00, to wait for his debt for a time; that he had already arranged with W. H. Wolfe, or with Wolf & Stewart, to take one half of the said property which he proposed to bid in in his own name, provided the property did not sell for more than $1,000.00; that with one-half the purchase-money he could pay off nearly all the residue of the debts; that said Susannah corresponded with said Needham, who was a friend and member of the same church, and he agreed to wait for his money six, twelve and eighteen months, and accordingly such arrangement was made, and Warner was to hold one-half of the property and pay off the debts, and then turn over the property to the said Susannah. Warner became the purchaser at $1,050.00 at the trust-sale made on the first day of August, 1877, and a deed was made to him, a copy of which is exhibited with the bill; and said Warner conveyed to W. H. Wolfe, or to Wolfe & Stewart, one undivided half of said property for the consideration of $525.00, one half the said purchase-money; that at the sale of said property J. B. McCandless requested said Warner to postpone the sale for a week in order that he might find a purchaser who would pay more money for the property, and that Warner replied that Wolfe & Stewart had already agreed to take one half of the property if it did not go for $1,000.00 or a little more, and that he had already bid $50.00 more, and declared then and there that he was not buying the property for himself, but was buying one-half for Wolfe, or Wolfe & Stewart, and one half for Mrs. McCandles; that after said sale Warner, Wolfe and Stewart proceeded to work and develop said property, and have produced about 3,000 barrels of oil above the royalty and have sold the same at remunerative prices, at an average price of not less than $3.00 per barrel, one half of which belongs to the female plaintiff, after deducting expenses, etc.; that some time after the sale said Warner professed to be acting in good faith and expressed his anxiety to have the property disencumbered from debt so that he could turn it over to the female plaintiff. That of the proceeds he has paid the female plaintiff about $300.00. The bill exhibits a number of letters which it charges were written by the said Warner with reference to said sale and management of said property, which are filed with the bill, marked one to fourteen, inclusive, except No. 12, written by Needham. The bill also sets out the substance of these letters.
The bill charges, that the property has paid the debt and expenses, and that Warner, the trustee, is largely indebted to the female plaintiff; that the facts and circumstances set forth in the bill constitute said Warner, trustee, for said female plaintiff; that he has refused to make an exhibit of his accounts and now denies that he is trustee for said female plaintiff. The bill makes the said Warner, W. H. Wolfe and Samuel Stuart, defendants and prays, that said Warner be required to answer and say how much oil has been produced from said lease No. 58 since the sale under the deed of trust, and show the monthly productions; that he furnish an accurate statement of the grades of the oil so produced and the amount of each grade; also an accurate statement of money actually expended in operating said well with the proper vouchers therefor; also a statement of the sales of oil, to whom sold, the prices for each lot sold, and what he has done with the money; that he disclose how much of the Needham debt has been paid by him and when paid, and that he further state in what manner he has been acting toward said property, and for whose benefit he claims to have been acting, and further say how much oil is now on hand. The prayer of the bill further is that Wolf and Stewart in their answer say whether one half of said property, about the time of the sale under the trust-deed was not conveyed to them, and if so, why the deed was not recorded, and that they be required to file said deed with their answer, and also state the amount of oils received by them from said lease, the grade, to whom sold, and at what price, and what has become of the half belonging to the female plaintiff. The bill still further prayed that Warner be required to fully account for all moneys that have come to his hands by virtue of the premises, and be required to turn over the same together with one half of said leasehold property to the female plaintiff, and that a receiver b appointed to take charge of said property, that is, one half of said leasehold property and all that property connected therewith claimed by said Warner; and for general relief.
Such of the said letters exhibited with the bill as we think material in the decision of this cause are here inserted. No. 1 was written on the seventh day of August, six days after the day of sale, and was written to Mr. Needham, one of the creditors, to get an extension of time on the debt due him. The letter is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial