Ricords v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 31 March 1874
• Citation: 56 Mo. 553
• Parties: ELLEN RICORDS, Adm'x of J. B. RICORDS, Respondent, v. FRANCIS WATKINS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

56 Mo. 553

ELLEN RICORDS, Adm'x of J. B. RICORDS, Respondent,

v.FRANCIS WATKINS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1874.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Whittlesey and Lubke, for Appellant.

Cline, Jamison & Day, for Respondent.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is the same case that was in this court under the name of Smith vs. Ricords' Adm'x, (52 Mo., 581) and we are now asked to re-consider and reverse the decision then rendered. The only question is, whether the statute of limitations applies. The facts are stated in the former opinion, and if we admit that the evidence adduced showed an implied trust as against Ricords, it is still difficult to perceive upon what ground this bar of the statute could be prevented from running. The question as to when trustees who have acted in a fiduciary capacity may avail themselves of the statute of limitations, as a defense against liability, was thoroughly and elaborately discussed by Judge Scott in Keeton's Heirs vs. Keeton's Adm'r (20 Mo., 530). He there refers to and approves the opinion of Chancellor Kent in Kane vs. Bloodgood, (7 Johns. Ch. 110,) who after reviewing the cases on the subject, expresses the opinion that the trusts intended by the courts of equity not to be reached or affected by the statute of limitations, are those technical and continuing trusts which are not at all cognizable at law, but fall within the proper, peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of courts of equity. The learned judge then continues: “but Chancellor Kent in the case to which reference has been made maintains that, if the trustee deny the right of his cestui que trust and assume absolute ownership, the remedy of the latter is confined to the period allowed for the recovery of legal estates at law; that so long as the trust is a subsisting one, and admitted by the act and declarations of the parties, the statute does not affect it; but when such transactions take place between trustee and cestui que trust as would, in case of tenants in common, amount to an ouster of one of them by the other, a court of equity would not consider length of time of no consequence.” After reviewing many authorities, this branch of the opinion is concluded by quoting with approbation Angel on Limitations, where the author says, “Even in cases of direct and technical trusts, if the trustee should deny the right of his cestui que trust and assume absolute ownership, the latter could not be allowed a remedy beyond the period limited for the recovery of legal estates at law.”

In reference to cases of the description now under consideration it is said, “In all cases of resulting, implied and constructive trusts, when a party is to be constituted a trustee by a decree of a court of equity founded on frauds, it is well settled as a rule of equity, that the statute of limitations and presumption from lapse of time will operate. With regard to the statute of limitations, it will run from the time that the facts are brought home to the knowledge of the party. He then has a cause of action and there is no reason for placing him in any better situation than any other suitor. Having a cause and being fully aware of it, there is nothing to prevent the statute from running against him. The...