Shelton v. Shelton

• Decision Date: 31 December 1859
• Citation: 5 Jones 292,58 N.C. 292
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: HAYNES W. SHELTON AND OTHERS v. ELIZABETH J. SHELTON AND ANOTHER.

5 Jones Eq. 292

58 N.C. 292

HAYNES W. SHELTON AND OTHERS

v.ELIZABETH J. SHELTON AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1859.

At common law, it was not necessary that a trust should be declared in any particular mode. In England, the statute of frauds requires that declarations of trust shall be manifested and proved by some writing, but in our State there is no such statutory requirement; and so, the matter stands as at the common law. Where, therefore, one bought and paid for a tract of land, and caused the title to be made to A, declaring at the time by parol, a trust for B and others, it was Held that such trust would be enforced in Equity.

( Hargrave v. King, 5 Ired. Eq. 430; Cloniger v. Summit, 2 Jones' Eq. 513, cited and approved.)

CAUSE removed from the Court of Equity of Davie county.

Mrs. Mary Morgan in 1833, bought from one Andrew Hunt, and paid, for one half of a tract of land, and had the same conveyed to Vincent M. Shelton, who was the oldest son of her daughter, Elizabeth Shelton, the wife of Henry R. Shelton, an insolvent man, all whose property had been sold from him under executions. But the legal estate was conveyed to the said Vincent M. Shelton, subject to a trust declared by the said Mary Morgan, in favor of Elizabeth Shelton, for her life, remainder to all the children of the said Elizabeth Shelton.

The object of Mrs. Morgan was to secure a home for her daughter, Mrs. Shelton and her children; and accordingly, the said Elizabeth, with her family of children, from the time of the said purchase, until her death, which took place in 1844, lived upon and cultivated exclusively the premises in question, and no claim to the exclusive enjoyment of the same was set up by Vincent Shelton, in his life-time. He died in 1846, and after his death, the guardian of his children, the defendants, took exclusive possession. The bill is brought by the other heirs-at-law of Mrs. Shelton against the children of Vincent M. Shelton, to have a trust declared for all the children of Mrs. Shelton.

The cause was heard upon the bill, answer exhibits and proofs.Clement, for the plaintiffs .

Boyden, for the defendants .

PEARSON, C. J.

The pleadings and proofs establish these facts: Mrs. Morgan, wishing to provide a home for her daughter, Mrs. Shelton, and her children, (the son-in-law having failed and been sold out,) purchased a tract of land, paid the price, and had the deed made to Vincent Shelton, who was then the only son of Mrs. Shelton, then of full age, with a verbal declaration of trust, that he was to hold for his mother during her life, and in remainder in fee for all of her children; and Mrs. Shelton and her family lived on the land for many years afterwards, without paying rent, or any claim being set up on the part of Vincent.

The question is: Are these trusts valid? Or is there an implied trust for Mrs. Morgan--treating the declaration of trusts as of no effect? Or can the heirs of Vincent Shelton hold the land exclusively for their own use?

At common law, it was not necessary that a trust should be declared in any particular way; the declaration could be made by deed or by writing not under seal, or by mere word of mouth. In either case, if the trust could be proved the chancellor enforced its execution.

If a feofment be made upon a consideration paid by the feofee, he holds to his own use, because of the price paid. If a feofment be without consideration, the feofee holds for the use of the feoffor upon an implied use, unless there be an express...