Churchill v. Howe

180 Mich. 150 | Mich. | 1914

Brooke, J.

(after stating the facts). It is the claim of counsel for the appellants that assuming, as we must, the truth of all the allegations contained in the bill of complaint, no case is here made out for equitable relief. Uses and trusts are abolished by section, 8829, 3 Comp. Laws (4 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 10669), except as they are saved by statutory enactment. Section 8837 provides that section 8835 shall not extend to cases where the alienee named in the conveyance (1) shall have taken the same as an absolute conveyance in his own name, without the knowledge or consent of the person paying the consideration, or (2) when such alienee, in violation of some trust, shall have purchased the lands so conveyed, with money belonging to another person. The claim of the complainant is that this case falls within the terms of the exception stated in the latter part of section 8837 (4 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 10677); that is, that the defendants in this case in violation of some trust purchased the lands described in the bill of complaint, or at least those which were exchanged for said lands. We find ourselves unable to agree with complainant’s position. It would seem to be quite obvious that the title to the land first purchased was taken in the names of the defendants with the knowledge of the complainant, for the letters indicate that the $750 was advanced for the purpose of aiding defendants to complete the purchase of those lands.

We are unable to discern under the admitted statement of facts any trust violated by the defendants in the purchase of the first lands. The money was advanced by the complainant to the defendants' for that purpose. It is true that complainant believed that in advancing said money he would be able to reimburse himself from the moneys to be paid by Jackson on the escrow deed. He, however, made no conditions with the defendants when the money was paid over to them, and in using it as they did, and acquiring the title to the property in question in their own names, they certainly violated no trust. It is not apparent nor inferable from their acts that at that time they even entertained a disposition to defraud the complainant. Their fraudulent conduct commenced when later, through correspondence, they induced Jackson to pay the $900 directly to them, disregarding their obligation to the bank. While their conduct in the premises is concededly dishonest, disreputable, and fraudulent, we are of opinion that under the admitted facts they violated no trust and committed no fraud at the time the purchase of the lands was made. Thompson v. Marley, 102 Mich. 476 (60 N. W. 976); Wheeler v. Reynolds, 66 N. Y. 227.

The decree of the court below will be reversed and the bill of complaint dismissed, but without costs.

McAlvay, C. J., and Kuhn, Stone, Ostrander, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.