Eldridge v. See Yup Co.

A deed of bargain and sale to A, in the usual form, had these words in the habendum: “For the use of a Chinese church, or place of religious worship and moral instruction, under his direction and in conformity to the rules of the See Tup Company.” Held, that the legal title is in A, and that the deed does not raise any use or trust in favor of the grantor or of the See Tup Company ; that the Company has no equitable title or interest in the property by force of the deed.

Authorities cited to the point, that where the habendum in a deed of bargain and sale is irreconcilable with the premises, the premises must prevail.

The limitation in this deed upon the use, or the direction as to the manner of using the property, is not binding upon A, because inconsistent with the premises of the deed.

A deed of bargain and sale may be upon trust in favor of a third party, if words expressive of that intent be used.

To raise a trust in a deed of bargain and sale, there must be—1st, a cestui que trust; and 2d, an interest in the property conveyed, or some right or profit growing out of it; and the deed must show these things.

The deed in this case shows no intent to make the grantee A a trustee, either for the grantor or the See Tup Company. The direction in the habendum as to how the property shall be used, neither qualifies the title nor raises a use or trust.

If the deed in this case were not so drawn as to represent the real facts and intention of the parties, the See Tup Company must institute a different proceeding to get the benefit of such facts.

Query. Whether, if the See Tup Company were in possession of the property at the time of the Sheriff’s sale nnder execution against A, the grantee in the deed, and the deed on which they rely as creating an equity in their favor were drawn in its present form bv mistake, this mistake may now be corrected so as to conform it to the original design, and thus secure the property against the plaintiff here ?

Quay. Whether the deed could be corrected and with such effect-, if the purchaser at the Sheriff’s sale had express notice of the claim or title of the Company ?

Query. Whether, if the purchaser at Sheriff’s sale had notice of an equitable defense on the part of the Company when he purchased at the execution sale, his vendee is charged with this notice under the facts here ?

Queiy. Whether a party deriving title to land from the vendee at a Sheriff's sale —such party having paid his purchase money—is a bona fide purchaser within the protection of the rule, his vendor being charged with notice of an equity ?

Query. Whether, if the See Tup Company paid the purchase money, and the purchase was agreed originally to be made for them, and Athaie took the deed in his own name, does a resulting trust arise from these facts in favor of the Company ? And if so, could such trust be set up in this case by the defendant in defense of this action 1 And could it be introduced under these pleadings 1 And would the fact of the Company’s entering into possession, making improvements, etc., and being in possession at the time of the judgment, Sheriff’s sale and Caney's conveyance to plaintiff, be notice to plaintiff of this equity, especially in connection with the phraseology of the deed t And what effect in this respect would express notice of these facts have upon the rights of parties'?