Smith v. Isaac

• Decision Date: 31 July 1848
• Citation: 12 Mo. 106
• Parties: RALPH SMITH ET AL. v. ISAAC, WILLIAM ET AL. (OF COLOR.)
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

12 Mo. 106

RALPH SMITH ET AL.

v.ISAAC, WILLIAM ET AL. (OF COLOR.)

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1848.

APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

WELLS, ANDERSON & DRYDEN, for Appellants.

1st. The appellants insist that the decree ought to be reversed because it is not supported by the evidence in the cause. 2nd. We insist the decree should be reversed because the land sought to be recovered, is described in the bill and decree with so much uncertainty as not to be capable of identity. 3rd. A third reason why the decree should be reversed, is that forty acres of the land to-wit: southeast of northeast section 26, township 62, range 6, claimed in the bill, was expressly by numbers devised by Myers to Easton, for his own use; the devise insisted upon by Easton in his answer, yet the court decreed this forty acres to complainants. 4th. A fourth reason for the reversal of the decree is that the court ordered the payment of the money for the twenty-eight acres sold to White, to be paid to the negroes, whereas by the terms of the will the proceeds of the sale of lands were never to go into the hands of the negroes, but were to be invested in other lands by the trustees. 5th. The decree should be reversed because it is rendered against Ralph Smith and Wm. Duncan as administrators of Robert Easton, deceased, a relation that is nowhere averred upon record, or shown by the evidence, they sustained to Easton or his estate, but rests alone in assumption. 6th. If it was right to decree the lands to the negroes, it was wrong to give the rents and profits without a deduction for valuable improvements made by Easton, proved to be worth $930. The rents are exorbitant in any view that can be taken of them.

GLOVER & CAMPBELL, for Appellees.

1st. Wherever a trustee is guilty of a breach of trust by the sale of trust property even to a bona fide purchaser, if the trustee re-purchase the same property the trust re-attaches on the property. 2 Story's Com. on Eq. 508. Now the appellees insist that in the sale to Gray, the trustees committed a violation of their trust in several particulars, and, 1. In this, that they surrendered up the whole power of sale into the hands of Jack. This is admitted by them repeatedly in their answers, and indeed relied on as a matter of defense by them. 2. In willfully selling the property in dispute, at less than half the value of the same. 3. If the said sale was not made purposely for less than the value of the land, then it was made under such circumstances of ignorance, carelessness and neglect, as constituted a breach of trust. 4. The said trustees violated their trust in selling and conveying said property to Gray, without receiving any portion of the purchase-money, or taking any security for the same. 2nd. The trustees never were in a condition to purchase the property in dispute, having been at all times after the death of Jacob Myers, clothed with the trust for some purpose touching the same. The rule in equity is that a trustee cannot purchase the trust property from himself, and the same rule requires that his connection with the trust estate must be totally dissolved before he can purchase, otherwise the purchase may be avoided at the pleasure of the cestui que trust. 1 Story's Com. on Eq. 517. The trustee cannot purchase till fully divested of his fiduciary connection with the property. 2 Johns. Ch. R. 261. 3rd. The transfer from the trustees to Gray, and Gray to Easton, was an intentional fraud upon the beneficiaries, planned and devised for the mere purpose of getting the title out of the trustees and getting it into the individual. 4th. Until Jack had designated some spot where he wished to live and where the money arising from the sale should be re-invested, the trustees had no power to sell. Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheaton, 422.

NAPTON, J.

This was a bill to set aside a conveyance alleged to have been made fraudulently. The facts upon which it was based, were these: By the will of Jacob Myers, executed in 1834, his slaves, William, Isaac, Jack, and ten others were liberated, and made the devisees of all his lands, except his town lots in Tully, and forty acres in the northeast quarter of section 26, township 62, range 6. These last were devised to his nephew, Robert M. Easton, and the said Easton and William Duncan (who was son-in-law of Easton) were made trustees for the negroes. This will provided, that in case Jack, one of the liberated slaves, should wish to sell the lands and remove to other lands, the trustees should sell, and with the proceeds purchase other lands for the negroes, where Jack might prefer to live. The real-estate bequeathed, consisted of about 464 acres of land, lying in the bottom of the river Mississippi, adjoining the town of Tully. On the 3rd of August, 1836, Jack signed a written paper, which stated that he (Jack) had made arrangements with Thomas Gray for the sale of the estate devised by Myers to his negroes, and desired the trustees to convey to said Gray. On the 3rd of September, 1836, Easton and Duncan conveyed to Gray for the consideration $1,900. Within a week after this conveyance, it was agreed between Gray and Duncan, that the former should convey to the latter, upon the consideration of $2,600; but afterwards, and on the 4th of October, 1836, at the request of Duncan, the conveyance was made to Easton, who thereupon paid the seven hundred dollars (the advance in the sale from Gray) to Gray. Easton took possession, made improvements upon the land, and continued in possession up to the filing of the bill, excepting about 28 acres, which he sold to White, one of the defendants.

In October, 1840, this bill was filed. Six of the negroes, beneficiaries under the will of Myers, are the complainants, making the trustees, Duncan and Easton, and White, the purchaser of 28 acres, and the seven runaway negroes, including Jack, defendants. The bill charges that the conveyances from the trustees to Gray, and from Gray to Easton, were fraudulent, and the result of a preconcerted arrangement; that the land was sold for less than half its value, and that Jack's signature to the written paper, requesting the trustees to sell, was procured by imposition upon his ignorance or imbecility.

The answer of Jack details the particulars of the transaction so far as he was concerned, and intimates that he was under duress, or misled and deceived, in signing the paper addressed to the trustees. He insists on the fraud, and makes his answer a cross-bill. The answer of the other negroes, defendants, admit the charges of the bill, and pray relief.

Easton's answer denies all fraud, and relies chiefly upon the written order of Jack, who, he seems to think, was authorized by the will to control him as trustee. Duncan's answer is substantially the same with Easton's. White answered and insisted that he was a bona fide purchaser, for valuable consideration, without notice.

At the June term, 1844, of the Circuit Court of Lewis county, the death of Easton was suggested, and a bill of revivor filed against his heirs. The heirs filed their answer, adopting that of their ancestor, Easton. Replications were filed.

At the hearing, the material evidence was in substance this: Munday, a witness for the complainants, was acquainted with all the parties, and proved the signature of Jack to the paper heretofore alluded to, upon which the parties relied for authority to sell. He had a conversation with Easton shortly after Easton had purchased, which he thus details: “Easton, I am afraid you have got into...