Miller v. Cramer
Decision Date | 10 February 1897 |
Citation | 26 S.E. 657,48 S.C. 282 |
Parties | MILLER et al. v. CRAMER. SAME v. DREWS. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Charleston county; Benet Judge.
Three actions for specific performance by William Starr Miller and others,--one against Horatio C. Hughes, another against A. F C. Cramer, and the third against Hermann Drews. The cases were heard together, and from a decree for plaintiffs defendants in the last two cases appeal. Affirmed.
The trial court made the following decree:
These three cases, involving to a large extent the same facts and the same principles of law, were conducted and argued together before the master, and were also argued together before me. Upon exception to the master's report, three pieces of property in Charleston are involved,--a vacant lot on Bee street, and two adjoining lots, with buildings on them, on Spring street. One C. V. Chamberlain bought these lots in 1863, and the title anterior to him was not seriously contested. He bought these lots, and a good many other lots a farm on Charleston Neck, and a large lot of cotton, prior to the 10th February, 1865. On that day he executed a "declaration of uses" in regard to all this property. In it he recites that George N. Miller, of New York, had for many years been a partner with himself (C. V Chamberlain), under various styles and firms; that George N. Miller had some years previously withdrawn from the firms and retired from business; that he had left Chamberlain in possession of the partnership funds, to manage, collect, and settle the same; that large sums of money had during the present war, and before, been thus collected by Chamberlain, "for and to the use of the said George N. Miller," which it was not possible to remit to Miller, in New York (evidently because the war, between the states was then flagrant), "nor to hold and safely keep for his use, by reason of the war and of the great doubts and uncertainty of the nature of the present currency;" that it was unsafe to invest "said trust money in the name of the said Miller, to whom it rightly belonged" (evidently, from fear of confiscation by the Confederate government); that, therefore, he (Chamberlain) had made "large investments, and the same appear to be his own estate and property, but are in fact in trust for George N. Miller," who might be "put to great trouble and vexation" should he (Chamberlain) die without executing this declaration. Chamberlain, in this declaration of uses, sets out the property bought as above, viz. fourteen different pieces of real estate, and one hundred and ninety bales of upland cotton, and two hundred bags of Sea Island cotton. The lots involved in these suits are mentioned in this declaration of uses. This declaration of uses was naturally not put on record till after the war. It was left in the possession of J. B. Campbell, then a prominent member of the Charleston bar, who represented Miller, and after the war was taken by Chamberlain, with the full assent of all his late co-partners, to New York, and then delivered to Miller. It was put on record in Charleston county, S. C., on the 17th March, 1868; Colleton county, S. C., on the 14th August, 1877; Leon county, Fla., 27th July, 1891. With the above declaration of uses, which neither Chamberlain nor any one claiming through him can contradict or deny, there was clearly a resulting trust, as to all this property, in favor of George N. Miller. The declaration is emphasized by the record of the deed, not only in 1868, but also in 1877, and as late as 1891. Chamberlain concludes this declaration of uses by saying that he holds the said property (both real and personal) "for the use of the said George N. Miller *** for and until the full payment as aforesaid [of all moneys due Miller 'by reason of the above-recited premises'], in case they shall be sufficient for such payment, and the surplus, if any, for his [Chamberlain's] own use." This subsequent declaration cannot vary the effect of the declaration contained in the first part of the deed. In a deed, if there is a conflict between the provisions, those first declared prevail. Sims v. Meacham, 2 Bailey, 101; 4 Cruise, Dig. tit. "Real Estate," 244, side page, specially note 2. Chamberlain could not buy property with Miller's money, and then say that, if any profit resulted from the investment, he (Chamberlain, trustee), and not Miller, whose money had bought the property, should have it. Minton v. Pickens, 24 S.C. 592; 27 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 194.
The defendants claim, however, that subsequent events change the above, viz.: Chamberlain died in 1866, leaving of force his last will and testament, which was probated 16th February, 1867, headed, "State of South Carolina, Charleston District," by which he gives all his property, real and personal to "Letitia Chamberlain, of King's county, New York," on the trusts to convert all his property into cash, and to hold it, up to the amount of $100,000, for the use of herself and her children (naming them), and the surplus, if any, to his brother Alfred Chamberlain, for his (Alfred's) daughters. He appoints Alexander Isaacs and Thomas R. Waring his executors. On 4th April, 1868, Letitia Chamberlain filed her bill in equity in Charleston county, S. C., against Alex. Isaacs and Thomas R. Waring (executors), George N. Miller, Alfred L. Chamberlain (trustee), Ann V. Chamberlain, George L. Chamberlain, and Charles Chamberlain (these last three being Letitia's children). She claimed to be the wife of C. V. Chamberlain. Answers were filed by all the defendants. The children were then (13th May, 1868) of the respective ages, fifteen, thirteen, and nine years. The youngest therefore came of age in 1880. B. C. Pressley (subsequently Judge Pressley) was appointed their guardian ad litem.
No testimony is on file, and all we know of the facts of the case is derived from the pleadings, and from Master Gray's elaborate report of 15th July, 1869. It appears that some testimony as to Letitia's marriage, which was denied by Miller and Isaacs and Waring, was taken, and then the case was stopped and compromised. Mr. Gray reports that C. V. Chamberlain had, in his lifetime, been a member of several firms, the more recent of which were Chamberlain Miler & Co., consisting of Chamberlain (deceased), Miler (alive), and Smalls (deceased), and Chamberlain, Isaacs & Co., consisting of Chamberlain (deceased), Small (deceased), and Isaacs (alive). He then reports that the undivided halves of the lots on Spring street were partnership property, and the other undivided halves and the lot on Bee street were the private property of Chamberlain; thus contradicting Chamberlain's declaration, without an iota of testimony. Then he sets out the declaration of uses mentioned as above, and reports that it was made with the full assent of all Chamberlain's partners; that subsequently Miller released to his former partners the interest on the debt due to him, which had accrued during the war, and furthermore allowed them to sell the cotton "dedicated to his relief," and "which he had an undoubted right to hold," and to pay all their other debts, so that he was the sole creditor of the two firms; that they owed him then (15th July, 1869) $154.008.87, with interest since 23d November, 1865, which there was no hopes that the partnership property would pay; that the private property of Charles V. Chamberlain is chargeable first with his private debts, including the chief one to Miller of $4,100 and interest, and was sufficient to pay all these and leave a surplus. But, even with this surplus added, the partnership debt to George N. Miller, for which Chamberlain's private property was liable, could not be paid. The settlement recommended by Mr. Gray was that Letitia Chamberlain should release all claims, including her claim for dower on the estate of Chamberlain, surrender certain stocks of his she held (South Carolina Railroad, 100 shares), and convey all partnership property to Isaacs and Miler, survivors, and all Chamberlain's individual property to Isaacs and Waring, executors; and in return she was to receive $3,000 in cash, and George N. Miller was to return to her the securities he held as collateral to the debt of $4,100, release her from it, and look to the estate of Chamberlain for its payment. This settlement was confirmed by a consent decree of 16th July, 1869. By it the executors were authorized to sell Chamberlain's private property, to be administered according to law. On the 22d July, 1869, eight days later, all the solicitors in the case signed a memorandum stating that an error had been made in the decree, and that the same was "intended by all the parties thereto and their solicitors" "not to modify or impair the value to the defendant George N. Miller of the declaration of uses in his favor made by C. V. Chamberlain February 10th, 1865, of his private real estate, except so far as it may be necessary to apply it for the payment of his private debts, after which the property named in the declaration is to be applied according thereto to the payment of the debt to Miller." By a decretal order of 14th June, 1870, modifying the erroneous order, it is decreed "that the real estate of the testator, C. V. Chamberlain, by his deed of February 10, 1865, dedicated to the payment of the debt of Chamberlain, Miller & Co. to George N. Miller, be applied and paid on said debt, *** and also that the said executors, after payment of his personal debts, do in like manner pay whatever may remain of his estate, real and personal, on the said debt to George N. Miller; all such payments to be credited to the account of C. V. Chamberlain in the partnership books, for future accounting." Letitia Chamberlain released all...
To continue reading
Request your trial