Wood v. Fox
Decision Date | 13 January 1893 |
Citation | 8 Utah 380,32 P. 48 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | WILLIAM H. WOOD, APPELLANT, v. MOYLAN C. FOX AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS. JOHN N. WHITNEY, APPELLANT, v. MOYLAN C. FOX AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS |
APPEAL from judgment of the district court of the third district and from orders refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts, except the following: The findings in both cases were precisely similar except as to the name of the plaintiff, and were as follows:
That on and prior to October 7, 1872, the plaintiff was the owner of two hundred and fifty shares of the capital stock of the Eureka Mining Company of Utah, and that on and prior to said date, Joab Lawrence, deceased, was the owner of more than fifteen hundred shares of said capital stock.
That prior to said date, the plaintiff delivered to said Lawrence certificates of his stock representing 250 shares thereof and standing in plaintiff's name on the books of said company, and that plaintiff delivered said stock to said Lawrence to be disposed of by him, together with his (said Lawrence's) own stock, for the joint benefit of plaintiff and said Lawrence.
That on the date last aforesaid, the said Lawrence sold and disposed of 1,500 shares of his own and said 250 shares of plaintiff's stock together with 250 shares belonging to one John N. Whitney, to one Eber B. Ward, and as a part consideration of said sale, said Lawrence received the real estate described in plaintiff's complaint, taking the deed therefor in his own name individually; that the said Lawrence also received, in consideration of said sale of said stock, a large amount of cash in hand, besides other property. That the sum of $ 23,587.50 of the amount of cash received by the said Lawrence, as aforesaid, was applied by him in taking up an indebtedness against the Eureka Mining Company; that plaintiff was the owner of one-eighth of the total number of shares of said stock so sold by the said Lawrence to said Ward, the total number of said shares being 2,000, whereof 1,500 shares belonged to said Lawrence, 250 shares to said plaintiff, and 250 shares to said W. H. Wood that the said real estate and the said $ 23,587.50 were received by the said Lawrence in trust for said plaintiff to the extent of an undivided one-eighth interest; that the balance of the consideration received by said Lawrence for said sale of said stock was immediately after said sale distributed between said Lawrence, the plaintiff herein, and said Wood, according to their respective interests therein.
That in recognition of said trust in favor of plaintiff in said real estate and in said $ 23,587.50, the said Lawrence, on November 9, 1872, executed and delivered to said plaintiff the declaration of trust set out in plaintiff's complaint. That on, to-wit: November 9, 1872, the said Eureka Mining Company of Utah executed to one Theodore M. Tracy trustee, a certain mortgage to secure the payment of $ 43,587.50; the said Tracy taking and holding the said mortgage as trustee for the said Lawrence. That $ 23,587.50 of said sum of $ 43,587.50 represented said indebtedness of said Eureka Mining Company of Utah, which had been taken up by said Lawrence as aforesaid with a portion of the proceeds of said sale of stock. That the remaining $ 20,000 of said $ 43,587.50, secured by said mortgage represented an indebtedness due from said Eureka Mining Company of Utah to said Lawrence individually; that said mortgage was not given to secure in whole or in part, any indebtedness due from said company to said plaintiff or to said Wood, on account of services rendered by them or either of them to said company.
That said mortgage was afterwards and prior to the 26th day of August, 1874, assigned by said Tracy to said Lawrence, and the said Lawrence received the same in trust for plaintiff to the extent of plaintiff's interest therein, as aforesaid that is to say, to the extent of one-eighth of $ 23,587.50 and no more.
That the declaration of trust referred to in the fourth finding herein, was in the words and figures following, towit:
That the said Joab Lawrence took proceedings to foreclose the said mortgage and did foreclose the equity of redemption of the property therein contained. Said property included the mining property of what had been the Eureka Mining Company of Utah. That at the time of the foreclosure, a new corporation had been organized, under and by virtue of the laws of the Territory of Utah, that had succeeded to the said last named corporation and was called the Eureka Hill Mining Company; that said Eureka Hill Mining Company had a capital stock of 10,000 shares. That said decree of foreclosure was entered on the 27th day of July, 1876, and thereafter a deed of the United States Marshal for said property was duly executed to the said Joab Lawrence.
That the said Joab Lawrence sold and conveyed to the said Eureka Hill Mining Company on the 13th day of March, 1877, all his right, title and interest in and to the said premises, and all that he had acquired under the said mortgage and the foreclosure thereof; and in part consideration thereof he received thirty per cent. of the capital stock of the said Eureka Hill Mining Company, to-wit: 3,000 shares.
That the said Joab Lawrence took said shares of stock in his own individual name on the date aforesaid, and held and retained the same in his own name until the date of his death which took place on the 28th day of December, 1888 (and claimed and received the dividends thereon, and in all respects held and treated said shares of stock and the dividends received thereon as his own property, and did not at any time recognize any right or interest therein belonging to plaintiff). That the amount of dividends received thereon at the commencement of this action amounted to $ 94 per share, and at the time of the hearing of this case to $ 124 per share.
That on the 27th day of September, 1875, the said Joab Lawrence wrote to said W. H. Wood the following letter:
And on the 26th day of December, 1875, said Joab Lawrence also wrote said Wm. H. Wood, as follows:
That at no time after December 26, 1875, did plaintiff claim or demand of said Lawrence any portion of said mortgage property or the proceeds thereof, or any dividends received thereon, until April 6, 1888, nor did said Lawrence recognize or admit that plaintiff had any interest therein.
On July 18, 1876, William H. Wood wrote to John N. Whitney a letter, of which the following is a copy:
This letter was received by John N. Whitney in due course of mail and was produced by him on the trial of this action in pursuance of a notice.
On March 1, 1880, William H. Wood wrote to John N. Whitney, a letter of which the following is a copy:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. Sypert
... ... 831; 34 id. 219 ... 5 ... Where one co-tenant is in possession of the whole estate, ... claiming under a deed purporting to convey the entire estate, ... he will be deemed to have ousted his co-tenants. Freeman ... Co-ten. sec. 223; 119 Ind. 95; 104 id. 227; Wood, Lim. sec ... 266; 3 How. 974; 118 Ill. 459; 85 Ky. 155; 27 S.W. 190 ... 6 ... Courts of equity always discourage laches and delay. 3 Brown, ... Ch. 640. And after the lapse of years, and the death of the ... party assaulted, they refuse, for the sake of peace and ... ...
-
In re Miller's Estate
...but within the letter of the statute forbidding such testimony. (In re Atwood's Estate, 14 Utah 1; Hennefer v. Hayes, 14 Utah 324; Whitney v. Fox, 8 Utah 380; Whitney Fox, 166 U.S. 637, 644.) The doctrine that an act between parties will be scrutinized and that the burden of proof is upon t......
-
In re Malualani B. Hoopiiaina Trusts
...the trustee denies the trust and assumes ownership of the trust property, ... then the statute of limitations attaches."); Wood v. Fox, 8 Utah 380, 32 P. 48, 52 (1893) ("The law is that the statute of limitations begins to run against a claim growing out of a trust from the time the trustee......
-
Schettler v. Lynch
... ... or transaction with, such deceased * * * * person, or matter ... or fact whatever, which must have been equally within the ... knowledge of both the witness and such * * * * deceased ... person." Ewing v. White, 8 Utah 250; Wood ... v. Fox, 8 Utah 380; Whitney v. Fox, 166 U.S. 637 ... The ... rule is that when a constitutional statute is unambiguous, it ... is not open to construction or interpretation, but must be ... enforced; the court only resorts to construction and ... interpretation when a statute is ... ...