Saunders v. Richard

• Decision Date: 23 January 1895
• Parties: SAUNDERS et al. v. RICHARD et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

16 So. 679

35 Fla. 28

SAUNDERS et al. v. RICHARD et al.

Florida Supreme Court

January 23, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Bradford county; James M. Baker, Judge.

Bill by Sophia G. Saunders and others against John C. Richard and William McQueen Saunders and others, to enforce their rights under a trust deed executed by defendant Saunders to Richard. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Under circuit court rule in equity No. 61, such courts have power, upon motion, notice, and cause shown, to permit amendments to be made to answers to bills in chancery although such amendments may qualify or alter the original statements.

2. A trustee who is a party to a trust deed, who has accepted the trust, acted under the deed, and taken possession of the property, the grantor raising no objection, cannot for his own benefit surrender the trust deed, and take a deed in his own name to the same property, to the injury of his cestuis que trustent.

3. A trustee who is a party to a trust deed, who has accepted the trust created by said deed with a knowledge of the consideration upon which the same was made, and by virtue of the same has taken and held possession of the trust property for a long period of years, in acquiescence to the provisions thereof, is, when a suit is brought against him to establish the trust and require him to account for the trust property estopped from maintaining as a defense to said suit that the trust deed was executed upon an illegal consideration, or that it was defectively executed.

4. If a party, having the right to repudiate or affirm a transaction affirms it, he cannot afterwards resort to his right of repudiation. Impeachable transactions may be rendered valid by act of confirmation or acquiescence for a great length of time.

5. A trustee must assume the validity of the trust under which he acts until it is actually impeached. His duty is to manage the interests of his cestui que trust, and not to keep his conscience or betray his title or interest, and he can make no admissions prejudicial to the interests of his cestui que trust.

6. It is the duty of a party discovering a fraud to take immediate steps for a rescission of his contract. By his ratification of the acts of which he complains, and to which he was a willing party, he is forever estopped from setting up such defense.

7. A trustee who has accepted and entered upon the administration of a trust cannot allege the invalidity of his appointment as a defense for not accounting for the trust property.

8. A trust deed was defectively executed, not being under seal. The grantor recognized the deed as valid and binding upon him, and as vesting a good title in the trustee, who, for a period of time longer than necessary to create a prescriptive title, remained in possession of the trust property. Held that the trustee was not justifiable in surrendering the property, or the written evidences of title thereto, to the grantor.

9. A trustee in the care and management of the trust estate is held to at least such degree of care, judgment, and discretion as a man of ordinary prudence and capacity would exercise with regard to his own property.

10. Where a trustee has four cestuis que trustent, one of whom is sui juris, and the others infants, the infants are not bound or concluded by any transaction between the trustee and the cestui que trust who is of age.

11. A trustee holds as much for the benefit and protection of those entitled to the estate in remainder as of those to whom the immediate beneficial enjoyment is given.

12. The duties and obligations of trustees, in the care and skill with which they should perform the duties assumed by them, prevent them from taking advantage of blunders and mistakes which they themselves have made, and which have misled their cestius que trustent.

13. The law looks with extreme jealousy upon all purchases of the trust estate by the trustee. Such purchases are always voidable, upon proper proceedings taken by the cestui que trust.

14. One cestui que trust has no power to give away or dispose of the rights of another.

15. A trustee should not purchase the trust estate from his cestui que trust. The law regards with a jealous eye all transactions between persons occupying these confidential relations. As a general rule, a court of equity will avoid the contract altogether without proof of fraud, and will never sustain it except where the trustee clearly proves the fairness of such transaction, and that it was advantageous to the cestui que trust.

16. A transaction between trustee and cestui que trust will not be sustained if the trustee has taken advantage of any information received by him in such capacity, nor if the cestui que trust entered into the transaction in ignorance of his legal rights.

17. If a cestui que trust seeks to avoid a deed of the trust estate made by her to her trustee, she must account for any money received by her as a consideration for such deed.

18. Innocent purchasers for value of the trust property, without any notice or knowledge of the trust, cannot be held liable therefor.

COUNSEL

T. E. Bugg and A. W. Cockrell & Son, for appellants.

L. B. Rhodes and Randall & Foster, for appellees.

OPINION

LIDDON J.

The bill of complaint in this case alleged that the complainant Sophia G. Saunders was the wife of the defendant William McQueen Saunders; that the other complainants, except Joseph S. Wynns, who was the husband of one of them, were the children of said Sophia G. and the said defendant William McQueen Saunders. A summary of the material allegations of the bill is as follows: That the complainant Sophia G. Saunders was married to the defendant William McQueen Saunders on the 29th of May, 1855. That she lived with him as his wife until about December 1, 1865, at which time he deserted her, and has not since lived with her. That there were born of such marriage, upon the dates named, the following children, who are also complainants in the bill of complaint, to wit: William H. Saunders, February 18, 1856; McQueen Saunders, January 1, 1861; and Sallie Saunders, August 31, 1866. (The latter-named, Sallie Saunders, intermarried with said Joseph S. Wynns, and became Sallie Wynns. These latter-named parties and their mother, the said Sophia G., and said Joseph S. Wynns, constituted the complainants in the cause.) That about the 1st day of January, 1865, the said William McQueen Saunders was seised and possessed of certain lots of land in the town of Starke, Bradford county, which are fully described, and, being so seised, executed a deed of conveyance to the defendant John C. Richard and his heirs in fee simple, forever, but in trust for the sole use and behoof of the said Sophia G. Saunders in and for the term of her natural life; and at her death the said John C. Richard, by the terms of said conveyance, was to hold the same for the use, benefit, and behoof of the aforesaid complainants, who are alleged to be the children of said Sophia G. and William McQueen Saunders. That said defendant John C. Richard accepted said deed, and the trust declared thereby, and went into possession of said lands. That on or about January 1, 1878, the said defendant John C. Richard destroyed said trust deed, and on the 2d day of January, 1878, procured the said defendant William McQueen Saunders to exe cute another deed of conveyance to him, the said John C. Richard, whereby it was sought to convey to the said Richard the same land which was embraced within the trust deed. It is further alleged in the bill that the said defendant Richard at various times, and by separate conveyances, during the years 1883 and 1885, conveyed several portions of said land to the defendants John Kleinschmidt, Frank W. Simmons, T. C. Thaxton, and Kate Young, respectively. Kate Young afterwards intermarried with one Heinberger, and became Kate Heinberger. These last parties, alleged to be purchasers of different portions of the property, are, together with the said John C. Richard and William McQueen Saunders, made parties defendant.

The prayer of the bill is that the court protect and enforce the rights and trusts declared by said original trust deed, and compel the defendant John C. Richard to account for said trust estate so committed to him, including any rents, issues, and profits he may have received from the same, to be accounted for to said Sophia G. Saunders; that the persons alleged to be purchasers from said Richard be declared trustees, holding the legal title severally of the respective lots purchased by them in trust for the complainants. The bill also contained a prayer to the effect that, if the proper relief had not been prayed, the court would grant such relief as the complainants might be entitled to under the facts of the case.

The defendants first interposed a demurrer to the bill of complaint. This demurrer was overruled. Afterwards all of the defendants except William McQueen Saunders (who appears to have made no further defense after the overruling of the demurrer) filed their joint and several answer to the bill of complaint. After replication had been filed, and the testimony partly taken, the defendants, upon motion and affidavit, were granted leave to file amended answers. By stipulation of the counsel for the respective parties it was agreed that the replication filed to the original answer should put in issue the allegations of the amended answer. Each defendant filed a separate amended answer. The amended answers constituted full answers to the bill of complaint the amended being substituted for the original answer. The issues between the parties are made by the bill of complaint and the amended...