Pope v. Garrett
| Decision Date | 26 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1451.,A-1451. |
| Citation | 211 S.W.2d 559 |
| Parties | POPE et al. v. GARRETT. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by Claytonia S. Garrett against James Pope and others to impress a trust on realty in favor of plaintiff. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 204 S.W.2d 867, affirming the trial court's judgment in part and reversing and rendering it in part, the plaintiff brings error.
Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed and trial court's judgment affirmed.
Bleecker L. Morse, of Galveston, for petitioners Pope et al.
Terry, Cavin & Mills and Ballinger Mills, Jr., all of Galveston, for respondent Garrett.
This suit is by Claytonia Garrett against James Pope and others, the heirs of Carrie Simons, a negro woman, to impress a trust upon property that passed to the heirs on the death of Carrie Simons intestate, after she, during her last illness, had been forcibly prevented by two of the heirs from executing a will devising the property to Claytonia Garrett.
Following trial before a jury the district court rendered judgment awarding to the plaintiff, Claytonia Garrett, the beneficial title to the whole of the property. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in part and reversed and rendered it in part, holding that a trust should not be impressed upon the interests of those of the heirs who had not participated in the wrongful act. 204 S.W.2d 867.
On October 31, 1944, Thomas J. Green, a neighbor and friend of Carrie Simons, brought to her to be executed a will prepared by him at her request, by the terms of which all of her property was devised to plaintiff, Claytonia Garrett, who was not related to Carrie Simons. Present in the room at the time, besides Claytonia Garrett and Green, were the Reverend Preacher and Jewel Benson, a friend of plaintiff, who had been requested to come as witnesses of the will, and Lillie Clay Smith, sister of Carrie Simons, Mary Jones and Evelyn Jones, nieces of Carrie Simons, and Alberta Justus. The jury made the following findings: That Carrie Simons, some days before her death, requested Thomas Green to prepare a will for her leaving all of her property to Claytonia Garrett; that the will so prepared by Green was read by him to Carrie Simons; that after having heard the instrument read to her, Carrie Simons, in the presence of Reverend Preacher, Jewel Benson and others, declared it to be her last will; that Carrie Simons prepared to sign her name to the will but the defendants, Evelyn Jones and Lillie Clay Smith, by physical force or by creating a disturbance, prevented her from carrying out her intention to execute the will; that Carrie Simons was of sound mind at the time and was not in an unconscious condition; and that shortly after this incident she suffered a severe hemorrhage, lapsed into a semi-comatose condition and remained in that condition continuously until her death, which was on November 3, 1944. There is no proof that any of the heirs of Carrie Simons other than those above named were present or were in any way connected with the violence that prevented the execution of the will.
Two questions are presented by the two applications for writs of error that have been granted. First, should a trust be impressed in favor of Claytonia Garrett upon the property described in the will? And, second, if so, should the trust be impressed upon the interests inherited by all of the heirs or only upon the interests inherited by those who participated in the acts of violence that prevented the execution of the will?
We find no difficulty in approving the conclusion reached both by the trial court and by the Court of Civil Appeals as to the interests of the heirs who were guilty of the wrongful acts, that when they acquired, by the inheritance, the legal title to interests in the property, they became constructive trustees for Claytonia Garrett. According to the facts found by the jury, title undoubtedly would have passed to her under Carrie Simons' will but for the acts of violence. The case is a typical one for the intervention of equity to prevent a wrongdoer, who by his fraudulent or otherwise wrongful act has acquired title to property, from retaining and enjoying the beneficial interest therein, by impressing a constructive trust on the property in favor of the one who is truly and equitably entitled to the same. In Binford v. Snyder, 144 Tex. 134, 138, 189 S.W.2d 471, 472, the court quoted with approval the general rule as to the use of the constructive trust thus stated in the Ruling Case Law:
"It is a well settled general rule that if one person obtains the legal title to property, not only by fraud, or by violation of confidence of fiduciary relations, but in any other unconscientious manner, so that he cannot equitably retain the property which really belongs to another, equity carries out its theory of a double ownership, equitable and legal, by impressing a constructive trust upon the property in favor of the one who is in good conscience entitled to it, and who is considered in equity as the beneficial owner." See also 54 Am.Jur., pp. 167-169, Sec. 218.
It has been said that "The specific instances in which equity impresses a constructive trust are numberless, — as numberless as the modes by which property may be obtained through bad faith and unconscientious acts." Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, 5th Ed., Vol. 4, p. 97, Sec. 1045. A few cases will be cited where trusts have been raised on account of facts like, or somewhat like, those in the instant case.
Ransdel v. Moore, 153 Ind. 393, 53 N.E. 767, 53 L.R.A. 753, is probably the leading case. A woman, about to die and desiring to provide for her brothers, requested her husband, who would be her only heir, to cause a deed or will to be prepared so that she could execute it and thus vest title to certain real estate in her brothers. The husband, telling her that she was not able to make a will, assured her that she could rely on him and that if she should die without having conveyed or willed the property to her brothers, he would receive the title in trust for them and see that it was properly vested in them. The opinion, after citing and discussing many authorities, holds that although there may have been no actual fraudulent intention on the part of the husband when he made the promise to his wife, equity will impress a trust in favor of the wife's brothers on the property which the husband inherited and unconscientiously retained. For other authorities holding that when an heir or devisee in a will prevents the testator, by fraud or other wrongful act, from making provision for one for whom he would have provided but for the interference of the heir or devisee, such heir or devisee will be deemed a trustee for the person thus defrauded, see: Thomas v. Briggs, 98 Ind. App. 352, 189 N.E. 389; Bohannon v. Trotman, 214 N.C. 706, 200 S.E. 852; Gilpatrick v. Glidden, 81 Me. 137, 16 A. 464, 2 L.R.A. 662, 10 Am.St.Rep. 245; Scott on Trusts, Vol. 3, pp. 2371, 2372, Sec. 489.4; Page on Wills, Vol. 4, p. 961, Sec. 1764; Perry on Trusts, 3d Ed., Vol. 1, pp. 213-216, Sec. 181; Note 106 Am.St.Rep. pp. 94-100; Note 66 A.L.R. pp. 156-172.
Citing Hutchins v. Hutchins, 7 Hill, N.Y., 104, the defendants, Pope et al., make the contention that plaintiff, Claytonia Garrett, is not entitled to any relief because she had no existing right in the property of Carrie Simons and thus was deprived by the acts of the defendants of nothing but an expectancy or hope to become a devisee. That case was an action at law for damages, the plaintiff alleging that the defendants, by false and fraudulent representations, induced his father to revoke a will in his favor and to execute a new one by which he was excluded from all participation in his father's estate. It was held that the plaintiff had no cause of action for damages because, according to the allegations of his declaration, he had no interest in the property beyond a mere naked possibility. Mr. Scott, citing the Hutchins case and two other like decisions and several...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Sentry Title Co., Inc.
...fraud [, the statute of frauds,] may not be used as an instrument for perpetrating or protecting a fraud." Pope v. Garrett, 147 Tex. 18, 23, 211 S.W.2d 559, 561 (1948). In recognizing a constructive trust, the critical requirement for purposes of this case is that the parties have a confide......
-
Tijerina-Salazar v. Venegas
... ... when the defendant has obtained a benefit from another by ... fraud, duress, or ... the taking of an undue advantage. See Pope v ... Garrett , 211 S.W.2d 559, 560, 562 (Tex. 1948); ... Austin v. Duval , 735 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex ... App.-Austin 1987, writ ... ...
-
Bancroft Life & Cas. Icc, Ltd. v. GRBR Ventures, L.P.
...an undue advantage.” Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex.1992) (citing Pope v. Garrett, 147 Tex. 18, 211 S.W.2d 559, 560, 562 (1948); Austin v. Duval, 735 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, writ denied)). Unjust enrichment “is not a proper remedy ‘me......
-
Bancroft Life & Cas. ICC, Ltd. v. GRBR Ventures, L.P.
...an undue advantage.” Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex.1992) (citing Pope v. Garrett, 147 Tex. 18, 211 S.W.2d 559, 560, 562 (1948) ; Austin v. Duval, 735 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, writ denied) ). Unjust enrichment “is not a proper remedy ‘......
-
The Imposition of Constructive Trusts and Other Concepts at Probate-part Ii
...17b and 18, under Restatement of the Law of Restitution, § 784 at 754. 4. 753 P.2d 775 (Colo.App. 1987). 5. Pope v. Garrett, 211 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1948). 6. See Timothy C. Wirt, M.D. v. Proutt, 754 P.2d 429 (Colo.App. 1988), involving funds paid to a decedent's estate by a medical reimbursem......