Richtman v. Watson

• Decision Date: 04 June 1912
• Parties: RICHTMAN ET AL. v. WATSON.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

150 Wis. 385

136 N.W. 797

RICHTMAN ET AL.

v.WATSON.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 4, 1912.

Syllabus by the Judge.

Real estate, not suitable for a particular partnership business nor intended to be or ever is used therein, does not become assets of the firm in equity by mere verbal agreement of the owner, for a consideration, with his partners in such business that it shall be considered such.

The foregoing is because, “No interest in ands other than leases for a term not exceeding one year, nor any trust or power over or concerning lands or in any manner relating thereto can be created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared unless by an act or operation of law, or by deed or conveyance in writing, subscribed by the party creating, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized in writing.” Section 2302, Stats.

Real estate, purchased with partnership money, actually or constructively, for partnership purposes, belongs to the firm though the title be taken in the name of one partner with or without the consent of his associate.

If a person purchase land with money of a partnership given him to buy land for the members to hold as tenants in common, taking title in his own name by previous consent, or subsequent acquiescence, the partners cannot claim it on a resulting trust.

The rule above stated is because of the abrogation of resulting trusts. Section 2071, Stats. 1898.

If a person deposit money with another to buy land for such person or to hold upon a charitable trust for a class, and such other invests the money, taking title in form as owner, involving a breach of good faith, an implied trust is created in favor of such person or such class according to the facts.

In the circumstances last stated, if the purpose of the deposit is for the depositee to invest the money in property to be held for a class, and a breach of faith be committed by not having the deed show the facts be waived by the depositor, that does not affect the title; as to him, in case of the breach being against the depositor it changes the implied trust into the common law field of resulting trusts, leaving the depositor no remedy but to recover back the money, because there is no implied trust, strictly so-called, without breach of faith and no enforceable resulting trust.

Where two persons close an accord and satisfaction by a contractual receipt in writing, it cannot be varied, contradicted or explained by verbal evidence.

The rule as to trusts requiring definiteness of scheme and of beneficiaries who can enforce it, does not apply to charitable trusts.

In case of a trust for charity, individual beneficiaries may be uncertain and the particularobject vague, the latter may be single or broad, only stopping something short of general charity. So the class may be great or small and there may be vagueness in many respects without jeopardizing the trust.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walworth County; Lawrence W. Halsey, Judge.

Action by Jacob M. Richtman and others against Wingfield Watson and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant Wingfield Watson appeals. Reversed and remanded, with direction to dismiss.

Timlin, J., dissenting.

Equitable action to establish title in plaintiffs to an undivided three-fourths interest in certain lands, charge defendants Wingfield Watson and Elizabeth White as trustees of such title for plaintiffs, and compel conveyance thereof to them.

The facts upon which plaintiffs grounded their claim are indicated in the epitome of the findings hereafter given.

Defendant Watson joined issue as to all allegations in the complaint which, if true, would support plaintiffs' theory as to his holding title in trust for them, and pleaded this: The greater part of the purchase money of the lands in controversy was furnished by defendant Jacob Richtman, father of plaintiffs, under an agreement that it should be invested in land for the welfare of a religious sect, known as the Strangite Branch of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, particularly for any such as might be needy and the lands have been, and so far as not disposed of are, held upon such trust. The title was, in form, taken in the name of said Watson with said Richtman's consent at the time, or given immediately thereafter. Plaintiffs, after the purchase, became fully informed of the facts and acquiesced therein. Such situation was maintained for years after with approval of plaintiffs and defendant Richtman. The purchase was made without any knowledge that plaintiffs were interested as partners or otherwise in the money furnished therefor. Such money was received for the purpose for which it was used, and all acts in regard to the matter were performed without intent to deceive any one. It was not partnership money nor invested to hinder or delay creditors of defendant Richtman and plaintiffs as partners, nor was fraud intended or perpetrated on such creditors or plaintiffs; but the sole purpose was to hold the title to the lands in trust as before indicated, in which purpose defendant Richtman joined and plaintiffs acquiesced with knowledge of the facts. The deeds sought to be impeached were duly recorded soon after being made and the grantees therein immediately entered into possession of the premises and have ever since so remained, covering a period of more than ten years, adverse to any personal claim of plaintiffs, thus satisfying the statutes of this state as to title by adverse possession, particularly sections 4211, 4212, 4214 and 4215 thereof. For more than thirteen years prior to commencement of this action plaintiffs knew of such possession and made no objection thereto.

The issues were thus closed: In the spring of 1895, at Sterling Island, state of Missouri, defendant Richtman and plaintiffs, his three sons, formed a co-partnership in constructing and operating steamboats and barges on the Mississippi river and its tributaries, taking and executing contracts for river improvements and in mercantile business,--they to be equally interested in all property put into such business and the firm to be responsible for all existing individual liabilities; which property then consisted, in part, of a land contract interest owned by said defendant Richtman in agricultural land, described in the complaint, located near Burlington, Wisconsin, called the “Webber” land, the title to which, pursuant to such contract, was, in June 1895, conveyed to him, but never to the partnership or members thereof.

Such partnership ended in 1903, all accounts in the meantime being kept and funds handled by defendant Richtman and all property used in the business prior to such termination or soon thereafter, used in paying firm liabilities.

After the formation of the partnership and before purchase of the lands in controversy, it was agreed to invest the profits of the business in real estate in the vicinity of Burlington, Wisconsin, for the individual members, so that each might acquire, in his individual right, a farm, none of the land to be taken as partnership property or used in the partnership business, and the lands in controversy were purchased pursuant thereto.

Pursuant to such agreement partnership profits were deposited with defendant Watson and therewith he acquired the particular lands.

He took title to the land purchased in his own name and has since retained the same, except a portion deeded to his daughter.

Defendant Elizabeth White, without knowledge of her father's actual interest in the land, took title and subsequently, without such knowledge, made valuable improvements on the land.

Watson contributed $2,000 in buying the land and the balance, $8,350, was made up of firm money deposited with him by defendant Richtman pursuant to the agreement aforesaid.

Watson took the title without intent to claim the property in his own right, or prior authority from the co-partners, or any of them, but as matter of convenience in dealing with the property,--not upon the trust claimed in the answer.

Prior to 1900 the partnership business was profitable; but it then became financially embarrassed and defendant Richtman, without consideration conveyed the land to Watson, which, for eight years, he had theretofore occupied under a written lease from Richtman, paying rent therefor, and so continued till 1906, when the property was sold for $9,300, he receiving the proceeds, and thereafter, March 14, 1907, paying members of the former partnership $3,000 for use in discharging its debts and May 22nd, 1908, paying defendant Richtman $3,000 for the same purpose, using $1,000 to satisfy his alleged claim against such defendant for borrowed money, $2,000, to loan upon note and mortgage to said defendant and wife, $300 to deposit in bank,--the loan and deposit being in his name.

He has had the use of the land in controversy since March 1st, 1907, and whatever consideration was paid by his daughter, but has kept up the taxes, though neither the amount received for such use nor such consideration, nor amount paid for taxes appears from the evidence.

Prior to 1905, neither of plaintiffs knew of the status of the title to said land, and when they learned that Watson held the same they were informed by him and defendant Richtman, and believed, that he so held for the use and benefit of the religious sect to which all parties belonged, known as the Strangite Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, and were not informed that the title was in his name, in form, as individual property until 1910.

He has not claimed and does not claim the title in his individual right, and did not assert, till December 22nd, 1900, to hold the same in trust as alleged in the answer; but pretended to do so as matter of convenience in handling the property.

The trust upon which Watson claims the land has not been declared in writing, except by the answer herein, neither have the beneficiaries thereof been...