Butler v. Hyland
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Nonsuit — Effect of Motion. — A motion for a nonsuit admits the truth of the testimony introduced, but challenges its sufficiency.
Trust — Action to Enforce — Conveyance by Minor to Aunt — Confidential Relation — Agreement to Reconvey—Implication of Law — Nonsuit. — In an action to recover property claimed by the plaintiff to have been conveyed by her, while a minor, to her aunt, in trust, where the evidence of the plaintiff shows the confidential relations existing between her and her aunt, and that at the request of her aunt she conveyed to her the property, with the understanding that her aunt would hold it for her, the law implies an agreement by the aunt to re-convey upon request, and a trust is sufficiently established to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and the granting of a nonsuit is error.
Id.—Infancy — Disaffirmance of Conveyance. — Such an action not being one brought to disaffirm the plaintiff’s acts as a minor, her minority at the time of the conveyance is material only as tending to establish that the relations between herself and aunt were confidential, and it was not necessary for her to disaffirm the deed before bringing the action.
Id. — Continuing Trust — Statute of Limitations.—Where a trust, voluntarily assumed, was by the understanding of the parties to be a continuing one, and the trustee continued to hold according to the understanding, and never repudiated the relation, or did any acts inconsistent with it, the statute of limitations does not run as against the cestui que trust.
Id.—Laches — Trustee in Loco Parentis.—The fact that the plaintiff neglected to sue until sixteen years after she had attained majority, and two years after her trustee’s death, does not constitute such laches as will prevent her obtaining relief, where it appears that for most of the time she was a member of the family of her trustee, who stood in loco parentis to her, and nothing is shown which would make it inequitable to enforce the trust.
Temple, C. — Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of nonsuit, and from an order refusing a new trial.
[579]Plaintiff’s father, as she avers, died June 5, 1858, leaving, as heirs, plaintiff, aged eight years, and her brother, aged about fourteen. Her mother had previously died. Her father was the .owner, at the time of his death, of the lot in controversy. Just before her father’s death, her aunt, who was a widow with three children, the present defendants, came to live with her father on the lot in suit, and plaintiff became at once a member of her aunt’s family, and lived with her until her own marriage, in 1879.
While she was a minor, living with and. in the custody of her aunt, her aunt represented to her that her brother would get her property from her, and said if plaintiff would convey it to her she would hold it in trust for plaintiff. Upon this representation'and agreement, she conveyed her right to her aunt; that by mistake the deed was made absolute in form, and purported to be made for a consideration of five hundred dollars; that she and her aunt were both ignorant of this fact; that she received nothing for the conveyance, and did not discover the mistake until after the death of her aunt, in 1885. She never demanded or received a deed from, her aunt, who remained in possession up to her death, and the defendants, who are the only descendants of her aunt, although fully aware of her rights, repudiate and deny them, and claim to be themselves the owners.
She sues to recover the property, for a conveyance, and for general relief.
The defendants do not deny the ownership of plaintiff’s father, nor the facts which show that plaintiff was his heir, but they deny the trust, and aver that the deed was in fact an absolute conveyance for a valuable consideration. They also plead the statute of limitations, and charge laches in the bringing of the suit.
At the trial, the plaintiff was the only witness examined. She testified that her father died June 5,1858, leaving herself and her brother as the only children, her [580]mother having died before; that shortly before her father’s death, her aunt came to live with her father upon the lot in suit, and after her father’s death they all continued to live there together. She said: “I continued to live with my aunt in the same house; my aunt took care of me, sent me to school, and I had no one else to provide for or look after me; but my uncle sometimes sent money to my aunt for me; I was received in and became a member of her family, and so continued until the time of my marriage, which took place April 80, 1879.....After my father’s death, when I was about sixteen years old, and while I was still living un- ' der my aunt’s care, ray brother tried to get me to sign a paper while I was visiting him, and I would n’t sign it, and when I got home I told my aunt what he wanted ■me to do; my aunt said, ‘I will fix it so he can’t get your property from you ’; the next day a notary called at the house, and I signed a paper; my aunt said, * I will hold your property for you’; I did not know what the paper was, and never discovered it until my aunt’s death, and a short while before this suit was brought, but I suppose it was read over to me before I signed it; my aunt gave me nothing, and I received nothing for signing the paper, and I was under age at the time.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)