Danforth v. HerbertDanforth v. Herbert
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Walker
The purpose of the bill in this case was, to establish a trust in favor of the complainants and the defendants, in a certаin negro woman Sylvia, and her increase, the legal title tо which was in one of the defendants, as the administrator of Jоhn G. Finch, deceased. The case made by the bill is, that the brothers and sisters of James L. Finch deceased, as his heirs, werе entitled to a tract of land; that by agreem ent’ it was sold, with а view to appropriate the money arising from the sale, with the interest thereon, to the benefit of their father and mother; that Henry Finch, who had the money in his charge, died ; that the remainder, not appropriated, after his death was delivered by his administratrix to John G. Finch, who bought the negro woman, Sylviа, and took the title to himself. If the bill had averred, that John G. Finch рurchased the slave with the money received from the аdministratrix of Henry Finch, deceased, which belonged to the brothers аnd sisters of James L. Finch, deceased, or to those who had succeeded to their rights, then Johu G. Finch would have been, аt their election, a trustee for them. But unfoi’tunately the bill does not contain such an averment. It does not even allege, that the money received by John G. Finch from the administratrix оf Henry Finch was equal in amount to the purchase-money of the slave. All disclosed by the bill may be true, and yet it may be that John G. Finch purchased the slave with his own money, and at a pricе greatly exceeding the money received from the representative of Henry Finch. The bill fails, therefore, to make out a trust upon the ground of the ownership of the purсhase-money of the slave.
It is alleged in the bill, also, that thе purchase was made by verbal agreement of all the parties interested in the money. It does not appear, that the agreement was for the purchase to bе made with the funds above named, or that it should be made for thоse parties. This allegation, therefore, is not one uрon which we can predicate *499the inference оf a trust. It is true that we can make out, by inference and argument from the bill, that John G. Finch purchased for and with the money of thе persons for whom a trust is claimed. But that is not enough. “We cаn only sustain the equity of the bill upon facts alleged; we cаnnot sustain it upon facts inferred. The bill fails to show a trust in favor оf the parties alleged ; and, therefore, being without equity, it wаs properly dismissed.