Ryder v. Emrich

• Citation: 1882 WL 10439,104 Ill. 470
• Parties: MATILDA E. RYDER et al.v.REBECCA EMRICH et al.
• Decision Date: 28 September 1882
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

104 Ill. 470

1882 WL 10439 (Ill.)

MATILDA E. RYDER et al.

v.REBECCA EMRICH et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Springfield Sept. 28, 1882.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Shelby county; the Hon. JESSE J. PHILLIPS, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. MOULTON, CHAFEE & HEADEN, for the appellants:

The evidence upon which the complainants rely to prove the trust, considering the lapse of time and circumstances, and the persons to whom the alleged statements were made, ought to be regarded as sufficient to disturb the title to real estate.

The Statute of Limitations is a complete bar to the bill. To exempt a trust from the statute it must be a direct trust, and cognizable only in equity, and between trustee and cestui que trust. Angell on Limitations, chap. 16, sec. 166; Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. 98; The Governor v. Woodworth, 63 Ill. 254; Manning v. Warren, 17 Id. 267; Godden v. Kimmel, 9 Otto, 208; Perry on Trusts, sec. 865; Hayward v. Gunn, 82 Ill. 389; Quayle v. Guild, 91 Id. 378.

In States where there are remedies against administrators and guardians, at law, and limitations are fixed to these actions, the rule in equity is the same as at law. Angell on Limitations, secs. 170, 178; Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. 98.

After the ward becomes of age the fiduciary relation ceases, and the parties are regarded as debtor and creditor, and the Statute of Limitations applies. Angell on Limitations, sec. 178; 3 Wait's Actions and Defences, 563; Armstrong v. Walkup, 12 Gratt. 608; Gilbert v. Guptill, 34 Ill. 112; 10 Yerg. 160; 2 Edw. Ch. 343; 19 Ark. 623.

It is an invariable rule of law that to revive a stale claim, an express promise to the parties themselves is necessary, and an acknowledgment to a stranger does not affect the bar. Carroll v. Forsythe, 69 Ill. 127; Wachter v. Albee, 80 Id. 47; McGrew v. Forsythe, 80 Id. 596; Tredway v. Forsythe, 5 Bradw. 478.

Messrs. MOUSER & KELLEY, for the appellees:

When land is purchased with the money of one person and the deed taken in the name of another, a resulting trust is created in favor of the one whose money was used. Perry on Trusts, page 100, sec. 127; Coates v. Woodworth, 13 Ill. 654; Smith v. Smith, 85 Id. 189; Mathis v. Stufflebeam, 94 Id. 481.

Guardians are trustees, and remain so until their duties are fully discharged by settlement with the court, and payment to their wards. In re Steele et al. 65 Ill. 323; Gilbert v. Guptill, 34 Id. 139; Albrecht v. Wolf, 58 Id. 190.

The limitation law in force at the time the cause of action accrues, governs. Beesley v. Spencer, 25 Ill. 216.

In 1867, a legal title, except in a few instances resting on special statutes, could only be barred in twenty years. Gross' Stat. chap. 66, sec. 7; Kerr et al. v. Hitt, 75 Ill. 60; Turney v. Chamberlin, 15 Id. 271; Weber v. Anderson, 73 Id. 439. Equity applies the same rule to an equitable title. Angell on Limitations, page 22, sec. 26; Bourland v. Peoria County, 16 Ill. 545.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, filed by appellees, against appellants, to have a resulting trust declared in their favor, for seventy-four acres of land. It appears that Jacob Emrich became the guardian of appellees, in August, 1865. They were his daughters by a former wife, and he received of their money, as such guardian, $882.30; that he purchased the land in controversy on the 23d of January, 1867, and it is claimed he paid for it with their money, which he held as their guardian, and received a deed for the same in his own name. Emrich died after having made and published his will, by which he devised this land to his widow for life, remainder to his son Jacob in fee, but charging it with the payment of some legacies. The will was probated, but appellees renounce all benefit under its provisions. They pray that the trust be declared in their favor, and the title vested in them. On a hearing the court granted the relief asked, and defendants appeal to this court.

In defence, it is denied that the land was paid for with appellees' money,-- that if their money was paid for any land it was for another tract, and if it was paid for the land in dispute, the claim is stale, and is barred by the five years' Limitation law; that Emrich settled with and paid to appellees all money he held as their guardian.

We regard the evidence as entirely sufficient to clearly establish the fact that appellees' money was paid for this land. Emrich, on repeated occasions, and to different persons (to as many as four), deliberately and distinctly admitted or stated that the money of appellees went into this land. Nor is there any evidence in the case that overcomes or even breaks its force. It is, however, claimed, that owing to the length of time since the admissions were made,--owing to the imperfection of human memory,--it is not reliable. We are aware of no rule that mere lapse of time requires the evidence to be rejected, or limits the credibility of evidence, unless there be reasons impairing its force. It is true that the conversations detailed by the witnesses occurred ten or twelve years before they testified, but it is by no means remarkable that witnesses should remember occurrences for such a period. On the contrary, it would be rather remarkable that such a conversation should not be remembered by them. The very fact that the neighbors knew the father had the money of his daughters, would be a matter of discussion and curiosity to learn what disposition he had made of it, and in which all would make it a matter of concern, and on learning the fact, they would not be likely to forget it. The proclivity of many persons to interest themselves in the affairs of their neighbors is so strong that it would be almost incredible if they...