Peters v. Rhodes

• Decision Date: 15 February 1908
• Parties: PETERS ET AL. v. RHODES ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

47 So. 183

157 Ala. 25

PETERS ET AL. v. RHODES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 15, 1908

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1908.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Chancellor.

Bill by Robert F. Peters and others against S. F. Rhodes administrator, and others. From a decree dismissing the bill complainants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

J. J Mayfield, for appellants.

Foster Samford & Carrol, for appellees.

HARALSON J.

This is an appeal fron the chancery court decree dismissing com plainants' bill for want of equity. The case made by the bill is as follows:

That there is a trust fund of $9,454.43 de posited in the defendant bank at Troy, by the respondent, S. F. Rhodes, as administrator of the estate of Mrs. Peters, when in truth and in fact it was the property of these complainants which had come to them by devise, bequest, inheritance, or descent from their uncle, Dr. F. M. Peters, husband of Mrs. S. S. Peters, administrator's intestate; that the property came to them through Mrs. Peters, who was the wife of their uncle, and as his widow took a life interest in the property, which at her death passed to the complainants.

The bill asks that the chancery court assume jurisdiction and control of this trust fund, and administer it in accordance with the principles of equity to these complainants, who are in law and in equity entitled to this trust fund, and to prevent its being wasted, scattered and distributed to the creditors, heirs or distributees of Mrs. S. S. Peters, instead of to the equitable owners, the heirs, devisees or legatees of her husband, Dr. F. M. Peters. The bill alleges, substantially in the alternative, that Dr. F. M. Peters either left a last will and testament by which this property passed to his wife for her natural life, or the property of which this is the proceeds, or if it did not pass by such will, that it passed by inheritance or descent; the rights and remedies of the complainants being the same in either case. The bill also alleges an agreement or contract between Mrs. Peters and complainants' father, through whom they inherit from Dr. F. M. Peters, that the widow or life tenant should manage and control this property, and substantially, that she should preserve the property, or its proceeds, for the complainants after her death; that she might sell and convey the specific property acquired by her from her husband and reinvest the proceeds, and that the property thus acquired, or its proceeds, should pass to these complainants after her death. The widow and life tenant, Mrs. S. S. Peters, agreed that she would will or convey the property or its proceeds thus acquired by her from her deceased husband, to these complainants. At the time of filing this bill, the complainants were not informed as to whether Mrs. Peters made a last will or a conveyance in accordance with her agreement.

The contention of complainants' counsel is that the property, sought to be declared to be theirs, is a trust fund, and that a court of equity has jurisdiction to administer such funds; that such a court will follow trust property and keep it subject to the trust of which it originally formed a part, even when it has been converted, provided the property can be identified either in its original or substituted form. Winston v. Miller, 139 Ala. 260, 35 So. 853.

It is settled, that when trusts are to be executed, which the probate court cannot enforce, a court of chancery may take cognizance of the settlement of an executor's or administrator's administration, after it has been commenced in the probate court. Gould v. Hays, 19 Ala. 438; Pearson v. Darrington, 18 Ala. 348.

"Where there is a future right of enjoyment of personal property, courts of equity will interpose and grant relief upon a bill quia timet, where there is any danger of loss or deterioration, or injury to it, in the hands of the party who is entitled to the present possession." 2 Story's Eq. § 845; Bethea v. Bethea, 116 Ala. 265, 22 So. 561.

The bill alleges that the administrator of Mrs. S. S. Peters, S F. Rhodes, has taken possession of the property of complainants, as the property of the estate of Mrs. S. S. Peters, and deposited it with the defendant bank, and is administering or converting it as if it were the property of her estate, when in law and equity, as set up, it was the property of these complainants. If this is true, it makes the administrator and the bank trustees in invitum, and the jurisdiction of a court of equity in such case is adequate, to compel them as such trustees to account. As was said in Thompson v. Thompson, 107 Ala. 169, 18 So. 250: "The defendants may have taken possession of the...