Case ID: ohio-st_11/html/0084-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gholson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Matthew Birchard v. George A. Edwards and William E. Edwards
    Where a will declared certain trusts as to a tract of land, to support which the whole legal estate of the inheritance might be required, but the legal title was left to descend to the heirs at law, who in the event the trusts of the will should be accomplished, orshould fail, would have a beneficial interest, either in money or in the'lund : Held, that the legal title was held by the heirs aa trustees, and that a creditor who had obtained a judgment against one of the heirs, did not thereby acquire a lien on the land, which would entitle him to be relieved against a conveyance of the interest of the heir made in good faith, after the date of the judgment, but before the commencement of the action.
    Error to the district court of Trumbull county.
    The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to subject to the payment of judgments against George A. Edwards, an interest in certain land described in the petition. The petition alleges that the judgments were recovered before a justice of the peace, and that transcripts of the same were filed in the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas and became a lien, on the 11th of February, 1857. The petition further states the nature of the interest of George A. Edwards in the land, and the fact that after the lien of the judgments, George A. Edwards conveyed his interest to William E. Edwards, which conveyance is alleged to have been made in fraud of creditors. The relief sought is, that the land, or the interest of George A. Edwards, may be subjected to the payment of the judgments.
    The answer of the defendant, William E. Edwards, denies that the plaintiff obtained any lien on the land, setting forth the character of the interest as arising under the will of John Edwards. The answer relies on the purchase from George A. Edwards as made without notice of the claim of the plaintiff, and in good faith.
    An amended petition was filed, stating that George A. Edwards and William E. Edwards are heirs at law of John Edwards, who died seized of the lands, and that they each inherited a share of the land subject to the charge created by the will of John Edwards, which was duly proved and made an exhibit.
    The items of the will affecting the land are as follows:
    “ 1st item. I give and devise to my beloved wife during her natural life, the use of the farm on which we now reside, situate in Weathersfield, so far as necessary for her support and all the household goods and furniture now belonging to us,” etc.
    “ 2nd item. It is my request that my son, Wm. E. Edwards, shall occupy the farm and live with his mother, and so long as he may occupy the farm and furnish a good and sufficient support for his mother, as is necessary for her comfort ; and further, that my daughter, Mary Jane Edwards, shall remain and live with my wife and my son, Wm. E., and, so long as she may remain during the lifetime of my wife, that she shall have her support for herself and her child, Thomas H., for her labor in doing her household labor necessary for the comfort of the family; and so long as the son, Wm. E. Edwards, shall remain in the place with his mother, and furnishing her a sufficient support, he shall not be taxed any rent for the use of the place; and so long as the said Mary Jane shall remain with her mother and Wm. E., she shall not be charged anything for the support of herself and child, Thomas II., but in case the matters transpire that it would be so (by death, unwillingness to comply), or any other cause, by the said Wm. E. Edwards or Mary Jane Edwards, to this item in my will, that my wife should, avail herself of the first item of my will; also, that she may avail herself of the first item at any time when the said Wm. F. Edwards or Mary Jane Edwards should fail to support and administer to her comfort that is necessary during her life.”
    “ 5th item. It is my request that my son, Wm. E. Edwards, shall pay what debts there shall remain unpaid (after the proceeds of the personal property is applied), and hold the same on interest against my estate until the decease of my wife, and then at her demise, that my son, Wm. E. Edwards, shall take the farm at the appraised value, and paj the heirs equal any amount of money that may be over the amount due him and other creditors.”
    There was a demurrer to the answer, which was overruled; and the case having been submitted on the pleadings, the plaintiff offering no evidence, the court found the issues for the defendant, and judgment was thereupon rendered for the defendants.
    The case was taken by appeal to the district court, and the same judgment was there rendered, to reverse which a petition in error has been filed in this court, and it is claimed that the district court erred:
    1. In overruling the demurrer of the plaintiff to the answer of William E. Edwards, and in refusing to hold that said answer was insufficient.
    ' 2. In neglecting and refusing to subject the interest of George A. Edwards under the will and as heir at law, unincumbered by his deed to William E. Edwards in and to the land "mentioned in the petition, to the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s judgments.
    8. In holding that at the 'time of the filing of the transcripts mentioned in the petition, George A. Edwards had no legal estate in said lands, when, in fact, he held an undivided interest in fee, subject to a life estate, and subject to be defeated by an election only thereafter to be made, to pay the debts of the testator, and to George A. Edwards his share of the appraised value, by William E. Edwards.
    
      M. Birchard, plaintiff in error.
    
      George M. Tuttle, for defendants in error.
   Gholson, J.

The plaintiff, to recover in this case, must show a legal interest in the land, bound by the judgments against George A. Edwards, and subject to sale on execution. If the interest of George A. Edwards be equitable, or be not affected by the lien of the judgments, then the claim of the defendant, William E. Edwards, acquired in good faith before the commencement of the action, though after the filing of tbe transcripts of tbe judgments, must be preferred as prior and better.

It is claimed by the plaintiff that the legal title to the land, upon the death of John Edwards, descended to his heirs at law, of whom George A. Edwards was one. We incline to think, that the somewhat complicated provisions of the will of John Edwards require such a conclusion. Even during the life of the wife, an interest in the land is given to William F. Edwards, and also to Mary Jane Edwards, and the interest given to the wife for life in the first item of the will, must be subject to the limited and conditional interests created for the benefit o'f William F. Edwards and Mary Jane Edwards-. None of these interests can, we think, be properly regarded as legal interests or estates, but they certainly constitute a valid charge or trust on the estate, and if the heirs have taken the legal title, they hold it subject to the trusts created by the will. These trusts, during the life of the wife, leave no beneficial interest in the heirs. During that period they are mere naked trustees. If no further trusts had been created by the will, then a legal estate in the trustees for the life of the wife would have sufficed; but the will evidently contemplated a charge for the benefit of creditors, and an interest in favor of William F. Edwards, to be made effectual after her death. The trusts of the will, then, extending beyond the life of the wife, the legal title or estate must continue for their support. And as the trusts might, as was evidently expected, exhaust the whole legal estate of inheritance, the fee must be regarded as held in trust. Gibson v. Lord Montford, 1 Ves. Sr. 485, 491.

In equity, the parties stand in the same position as if, for the purposes of the trusts declared in the will, the title had been placed in a trustee. The estate held by the heirs in trust, and any beneficial interest which may arise, if the purposes of the trust are accomplished or fail, should be distinguished. The creditor who prosecutes the action does not, and can not, claim that the court should aid him in disposing of a naked legal title held in trust. He really seeks the possible and contingent interest which may arise in the event that the debts charged on the land are otherwise paid than as contemplated in the will, and William E. Edwards should decline to take the land at its appraised value, or, the money which would be payable should William E. Edwards take the land. This uncertain and contingent interest it is proposed to reach, as lands and tenements, by an appraisement and sale. We do not think our statutes regulating judgments and executions contemplate the sale of such an interest; nor do we think that the mere fact that the party entitled to such an interest is a trustee of the legal estate, can make any difference. ■

Substantially, the will of John Edwards must be'regarded as disposing of the whole legal estate of inheritance for the purposes declared, and any interest which may arise after those purposes are accomplished is an equitable interest. Such an interest is not bound by the lien of a judgment, and can not be levied on and sold under an execution. Morris v. Way, 16 Ohio Rep. 469. Even if a naked legal title held by a trustee were formally levied on and sold, no right would be thereby acquired which would be regarded in equity. The principles upon which the jurisdiction of equity, in cases of trust, is maintained, clearly forbid any aid to an attempt of that kind.

We think there was no error in the finding of the court in this case; and the judgment will be affirmed.

Brinkerhoff, C.J., and Scott, Peck and Sutliff, JJ., concurred.