Lathrop v. Bampton

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1866Published

Before: Sanderson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A cestui que trust cannot claim specific property from a deceased trustee's estate unless the trust fund is identified as the original property or its product; otherwise, the beneficiary is merely a general creditor who must present a claim to the executor.

Issues

Whether a beneficiary can recover trust funds from a deceased trustee's estate without identifying the specific property or its product.
Whether a beneficiary of a trust must present a claim to the executor of a deceased trustee's estate before initiating an action for recovery.
Whether an action against an executor for a lost trust fund can be maintained as a bill in equity for an account without identifying the trust property.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Before a cestui que trust can claim specific real or personal property he must show that it is the identical property originally covered by the trust, or that it is the fruit or product thereof in a new form.”

“When thus forced to rely upon the personal liability of the trustee, a cestui que trust occupies a position towards the estate of the trustee which is no better, but is identical with that of a simple contract creditor.”

Synopsis

Against whom a Trust will be Enforced.—A Court of equity will enforce a trust against all persons who with notice of the trust come into the possession of the trust property, in the same manner and with like effect as against the original trustee.

Action against Executor to enforce a Trust.—If an action to enforce a trust could not have been maintained against a testator, it cannot be maintained against his executor.

When Trust will not be Enforced against an Executor.—A trust assumed by a testator will not be enforced against his executor when the identity of the trust fund is entirely lost, and it is neither shown to bo in the hands of the executor in its primary condition, nor that it was converted by his testator into the property or any part of it in the executor's possession.

Enforcement of Trust upon Specific Property.—Before a cestui que trust can claim specific real or personal property in the enforcement of the trust, he must show that it is the identical trust property, or that it is the fruit or product thereof in a new form.

Remedy of Cestui que Trust against Trustee.—When the cestui que trust can identify the trust fund, either in its original or in a substituted form, he may elect to hold the original or substituted property, or may hold the trustee personally liable; but if he cannot identify the property he must rely on the personal liability of the trustee.

Claim of Cestui que Trust against Estate of Trustee.—If the testator during his lifetime mingled the money of the cestui que trust with his own, and after his death neither the trust money nor property into which it was converted can be identified in the hands of the executor, the cestui que trust has only a claim against the estate, which must bo presented to the executor for allowance, as required by the Probate Act.

When Executor can be held to account as Trustee.—If the executor has come into the possession of the trust fund or its substitute, so that the same can be identified, he can be held to account, and charged as a trustee upon the same terms as his testator held the trust, and the relationship of trustee and cestui que trust will be added to that of executor.

Opinion — Sanderson

By the Court, Sanderson, J.: The facts of this case, so far as a statement of them is necessary to our present purpose, are substantially as follows:

Humphrey Griffith, now deceased, in February, 1859, then being the guardian of Augusta Hunter Dean, now the ward [20]of the present plaintiffs, came into the possession of the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, in gold coin of the United States, derived from a lawful sale of certain real estate in which he had previously, upon the consent of the Probate Court, invested the estate of his ward. He never aftefward invested said sum or auy part thereof for the benefit of his ward ; nor did he keep the same separate and apart from his private funds, or keep any account thereof, or of the incomes or expenses therefrom between himself and his ward; but, on the contrary, mixed the same with his private funds and used it in his general business expenditures and investments, and never afterward separated the same so that it could be distinguished from his own private property.

In March, 1863, Griffith died, without having rendered any account of his transactions as guardian, or made any'provision for the settlement of his accounts as such ; but leaving a last will and testament, in which he attempted to dispose of all the money and all the estate, real and personal, in his possession as his sole and individual property, regardless of any supjmsed interest which his ward might have therein.

Afterward, in April, 1863, his will was admitted to probate, and the defendant Bampton appointed executor, who thereupon took possession of all the money, property and effects of every kind of which his testator died possessed, and at the time this action was brought was engaged in administering upon the same as the estate of his testator, regardless of all claims thereto on behalf of Augusta Hunter Dean. Among the assets which came into the hands of the defendant, there was only the sum of two hundred dollars in money.

The estate of Griffith is insolvent, and the sureties upon his official bond as guardian are also insolvent and unable to respond for the trust fund so received and held by him.

When the property, real or personal, in the possession of Griffith at the time of his death was acquired by him, whether before or after he carné into the possession of the trust fund does not appear; nor does it appear that any of said property,

Lathrop v. Bampton

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Sanderson

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Opinion — Sanderson

AI Brief