Stevens v. Coates

• Citation: 78 N.W. 180,101 Wis. 569
• Parties: STEVENS v. COATES ET AL.
• Decision Date: 10 January 1899
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

101 Wis. 569

78 N.W. 180

STEVENS

v.COATES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 10, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Chippewa county; A. J. Vinje, Judge.

Action by O. E. Stevens against Charles M. Coates and others. From a judgment dismissing the complaint as to certain defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action to set aside a deed as to plaintiff, made by defendant Freeman to defendants Coates and Corlett, and to charge the latter as trustees of a one-fourth interest in the land described therein for plaintiff. It was alleged in the complaint that the lands were purchased of one Brown, plaintiff furnishing one-fourth of the consideration, Freeman one-fourth and Coates and Corlett one-fourth, and that the title should have been conveyed accordingly, but that Freeman, who was insolvent, procured it to be vested in him, and thereafter, without consideration, and intending to cheat and defraud plaintiff, conveyed the same to Coates and Corlett who were non-residents of this state, having no property therein except the land in question. Coates and Corlett answered that they bought the land of Freeman for $800 and without notice of any claim or interest therein of plaintiff. The cause was tried by the court with the following result as to the facts: Defendant Freeman, being in the employ of Coates and Corlett as their agent to sell territorial privileges in a patented device for one-half the proceeds, with power to take real estate, the deeds to be made to the employers, and the avails thereof, when reduced to money, to be divided equally between Freeman as one party and Coates and Corlett as one party, employed plaintiff to assist him, agreeing to allow for his services 20 per cent. of his (Freeman's) share. Pursuant to the arrangement, plaintiff and Freeman acting together, sold a territorial privilege to use the patented device, for the land in question. No agreement existed that any part of the title to the land should be vested in plaintiff; on the contrary, the agreement between Freeman and Coates and Corlett required the property to be conveyed to them free from any claim of Freeman, and plaintiff had knowledge of that fact. Freeman conveyed the land to Coates and Corlett, they agreeing to pay him $800, $388 to be applied upon an account they had against him, and $412 in money. $62.50 of the latter was paid, and credit was given for the $388 before the commencement of the action. The transactions were completed without any knowledge on the part of Coates and Corlett of any claim by plaintiff to the land, or any interest therein. When the action was commenced Coates and Corlett had no property in the state other than the land in question, and Freeman was insolvent. On such facts the court decided that plaintiff had no interest whatever in the land; that Coates and Corlett were entitled to have the action dismissed as to them with costs against plaintiff, and that he was entitled to judgment against Freeman for $250 and costs.L. A. Doolittle and Wickham & Farr, for appellant.

Joseph W. Singleton, for respondents.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

The cause of action, to charge Coates and Corlett as trustees of an interest in land for plaintiff, wholly failed, not because of the happening of any event after the cause of action accrued rendering it impossible for them to respond as such trustees, but because they never stood in that relation to the plaintiff. The court found as a fact that plaintiff...