Polynesian., 1862-09-13
Ihe polpnesian.
SUPREME COURT-In Equity.
ISAAC MONTGOMERY rs. DANIEL MONTGOMERY.

Chancellor ALLEN delivered his decision follows
An abstract of the bill and have hitherto been
given by the Court questions which have arisen in
the progress of the investigation and therefore, shall
only advert to the allegations they involve ques-
tions material TO the issue now presented.
The complainant AYERS that he conveyed TO Charles
w. Vincent, for the nominal consideration of $4,000,
the 4th of September, lS49 an estate on the island
of OAHU called the PUuOa Salt Works the design be-
ing that Vincent should hold the estate in trust And
it is alleged in the bill, that the stock and furniture
purchased by the complainant by his funds
and further, that the estate mortgaged by said
Vincent to b. F. Angel, for the sum of $4,000 and
that the money arising therefrOm was received by the
complainant and said Vincent and that the latter gave
his for the he had received to the respon
dent, Who the 10th of july sued said note and
covered judgment thereon and further, that said
mortgage paid by raising money the estate He
further that he invited his brother, the respon
dent to to this country, where he arrived the
18th February, 1856. and that he paid his passage Tor
the respondent in destitute circumstances and
that the 10th june of the year. said Vincent,
by the request of panant, executed deed to the
said respondent, of the estate for and in consideration
of 900 Fifteen thousand doars) and he further
AYERS that the consideration nominal. that no
money paid to Vincent by respondent, that he was
at the time without means credit and that the OBJ
ject of the deed that the estate might be held by
him for the benefit of the comp lin mt, who sys that
there verbal agreement with his brother that he
should draw from the receipts of the property hun
dr,d dollars per month and that at The end OF elch
year the respondent should receive for his services
onethrd Of the profits Of the business, and the COM
painant two thirds and that the one hundred dollars
per month was 10 be accounted for on final settlement
that the respondent continued to pay him money, but
settlement has been made but Of late be refuses to
pay him anything; and denies that the comp pllnant
has any interest in the estate. And the complainant
further alleges, that it expressly understood and
agreed, that when he mgh desire it, the said estate
to be conveyed to him, to whOmsoever he might
direct that he has made repeated efforts for settle
ment but without that the respondent has Of
fered only give his notes, secured the estate for
thousand dollars payable in years, which he
regards wholly inadmissble, the estate cost him
6tty thousand dollars, besides many years Of toll and
care since 1912.
The complainant prays that account may be taken
Of ali the dealings and transactions of the respondent
touching the Puuloa Salt Works, from the 18th of
june 1855, to the day of filing this bill, and that the
amount due the complainant may be ascertained, and
that the respondent may be decreed to pay the SINE
and aso that the said respondent may be ordered to
convey the estate t. the complainant.
The respondent admits in his answer. that the
yeyance of the property made to Vincent, and be-
eyes that the consideration eight thousand dollars is
but does lot know whether the estate was held
in trust not or whether it was conveyed enable
Vincent to manage the property better for complain
ants interest, but believes it to be untrue.
lie denies that he came to this country in destitute
circumstances, for h. skilled in the art of ship
building, well having general business quali6ca-
tOns, and with sufficient at his command TO
ablish himself independently of his patronage and he
further says, that he does know whether said deed
from Vincent executed at the request of complain
ant, but denies that the of fifteen thousand dollars,
stated as consideration in SAID deed, was merely
nominal but states that il the price at which he
purchased the estate Of said Vincent. who sold him the
same time, secured by his negotiable notes and
mortgage of the And he denies further, that
the intent and object of the conveyance was that he
should hold the for the and benefit of
planant. or for the purpose of enabling himself to
manage it with more facility for the and benefit of
complainant.
Defendant further says he has no personal know
ledge whether the complainant, in bill alleged,
nued until the 10Th june 1855, to enjoy large,
any portion of, the proceeds of the said estate,
whether the same if true, not according to
agreement in bill alleged between the complain
ant and the said G. w. Vincent or whether the said
Vincent, in fact. held the for the
benefit of the complainant, in bill alleged, whether
said writing made for the purpose of enabling the
said Vincent manage said eectually for
the benefit of the complainant, whether the
said Vincent received for his alleged management
third any other, what part of the proceeds of the
said estate but, saith this defendant is crediby in
formed and verify believes, and therefore, that
all the said above lastmentoDed statements and ale
cations without any foundation in fact and were
alleged by the complainant in any of the inter-
course between them since defendant arrived in this
furniture Vincents, because complainant never
made any claim and that the of cattle
erred to sold by order of complainant, and pur
chased by respondent. lie says further, that the
mortgage to Angel was made by him as the sole and
bona de proprietor, and denies that Vincent gave him
for any part of the loan. The note for
ther consideration.
The respondent denies that he holds the estate in
trust and AYERS that he purchased for fifteen thou
sand dollars that he paid part of the consideration
fhat time hlt h0t ha haas maid ~
money to the complainant He denies further that he
under obligation to convey to complainant,
quest, or to any else, whenever he might direct,
and denies all Efforts at settlement The complainant
replies that he does net know whether the mortgage and
notes for fifteen thousand dollars executed
whether they delivered to him, at the time be
in great mental trouble but if such papers
signed they were merely for form, and no such
mortgage is recorded and that for the space Of
year from the Sd day of October. 1885, the defen
dant had possession of all repiant's papers and if
such papers executed their present existence is
unknown to this repant, and if any exist in the
possession of defendant The repan further says that
the cattle referred to in the answer offered for
SALE but there being purchasers, the cattle were
bought in by the respondent and money was
paid by defendant or received by complainant.
The counsel for the complainant AYERS that Vincent
held the estate in trust for him. with the understanding
that he would convey it to whomsoever the complain
ant might direct. and that in pursuance thereof. he
made conveyance TO the respondent, to be holden for
complainant Vincent had held it, and that the
spondent has been in the same relation Trustee
The counsel for the respondent contends that, the
deed is absolute in its terms, trust cannot be estab
lisbed by parole testimony.
1t is general rule of law, that parole evidence is
not admissible to create modify interests in real
estate unless in of fraud and mistake But trusts
resulting by operation Of law expressly excepted
from the operation Of the statute of frauds The doc
trne that trust may be established when the consid
Grafton OF deed moves in this case from the com
painant and from the grantee, fully sustained by
Chancellor Kent in the case OF Boyd rs. Mclean,
Johns, Oh. R. 582; when purchases estate
with his money and the deed be taken in the name
of B. trust results by operation Of law. This IS
well known and universally admitted rule in equity
The point raisei is whether such a trust be within the
- frnr,I and hat uhich