The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-28
REGAL IMTHLLxGHM0H,

The Dundas Estate-Interesting Decision.
Orphans CouYt-,Judge PdSson.
In the matter of petition filed by one OF the dis
tributes under the will Of the late James Dundas,
to have an Improbable sale Of his interest
scinded, Judge Paxson gave the following able de-
cision which will be found interesting alike to the
professional reader and the layman:-
In this petition filed in the Orphans Court
that James Dundas died the month june 1865 That
s % % Oe ePf pa af
OF his esduary estate That some time prior to the sth
money addressed letter to joshua Tppineott he Of
the of saG id estate sS to sell his 6 pc
tiation, Mrs. Agnes Dundas Lppincot, the wife the
the said interest Of the petitioner for the price or
of ten Ind d9 Ths Iii in & i Of said
day November 1866 executed deed to Mrs Lppincott
deraon money Se petitioner further alleges that SY he
o Of 0f & 0
Of the estate made by the said Joshua Lppncott Of
the real value MS ais share more than double what he
supplied Mrs Lppincott with the money none to make the
purchase. The ~ petition tito er prsys the Court
q That The said Agnes Dundas Lppincott may be de.
creed to be trustee of the interest of the petitioner in
g. That the said Joshua Uppincott and Agnes Dundas
Lppncott be ordered TO and deliver petitioner
the repayment Of the money paid to the latter.
That the said .gnes Dundas Lippincott be REQUIRED
received by her account of the said interest
toner the full amount Of his share and interest in the
g. That upon executors of
the Of the said james Dundqs suspend the sstt
the premises can be ascertained
10 this petition the CITATION issued thereon Joshua
Lppincott and James Pundas Lppincot. surviving exc
and asse that even i all the S aegaeGs % in
tion TO entertain the complaint and grant the relief
The Orphans Court has no general equity Jurisdiction
1t is court of equity in respect to the few subjects
Chief Justice Gibson in Brinker VS.. Brnker, b., 55,
E sRh SaEe Dsea se
its anee to IA GSat OF equity consists its
sub aSstahos but technical subsos
The Orphans Court statutory Jurisdiction
Of FRAUD S p sr a po @ tins
1 f. that S By Of lSh % Of 5s sn @ PqdO
Is Confined to the following cases, viz. :,
The m ts and s sbs
The removal and discharge of executors and admin.
stratos deriving their authority from the register OF the
pThe the surpusase
decedents after such settlement among creditors
l. The sale Of real estate of decedents.
The partition of real estate OF ntestates among the
g. The specific execution of contracts made by dece-
Seaes Se6eSt 70 sSs ss dne die sezed any
0ere I. PToceedinss for the recovery of legacies.
s. All within their respective counties, wherein
executors guardians or be
pTns act has greatly extended the jurisdiction of the
Orphans Court trostees But its jurisdiction ex
only to he It s ns Of
the Pleas n rs is int In tesla sta
oPSan Bcxns u Jonss $685.
ss g. g. not arise
by virtue Of any will r y B M by he R
sSsSe ss Ue one arising implication a%
H Trustees p l44 divides oOnsructiy'etrusts into
Of The Sdssg sg 1ntsd
Wien the trust depends upon some general equitable
MS nd of the existence oil fraud
am aware of any rule OF equity which forbds
trSnssetiop be free fraud. Hence TINS falls
Sshin 1s Sither there be @ trust it is trust er aeo
In Chesterfield VS. Jansen VII loo, b., Lord aardwieks
trust into four classes. as tollows;n
| e. Fraud apparent from intrinsic value g.,
5. Fraud which may be presumed from the circum'
Fraud collected from the circumstances Of the trans
It manifest that the facts set out in the petition
for the Of tins ms Ssss ws bd Of
stated classes IT trust arising by mpnGation out
IS trust oItipg arising under will or out of any
the Orphans or Reg &c po court
against The estate OF james That estate has
any Judgment this thereon unless indeed we sus
the ling before the s SsI
litigation. This is merely contest between
%as SnS RS,'0n Ss yonniss mS% ne se ~ suggested
himself and OF OF hss beSs
reached in the cannot possibly affect the
/
who waiting for their money zoe business OF
the auditor distribute the estate In thus he Is bat
pesoner T1t sss IS that q one time Interest
but who parted with 1T by and for valuable consde
ration While that deed remains m run t1sIe cue psI
ther interest in the estate Of james Dundas Tue and
opower to cancel the deed and decree recon
trust. any arises under the deed and the tEansac
a9
can only be granted by Judge sitting as chancellor
p we treat tins case Of trustee pgrchasin
III Is not like the referred to by Judge Agnew II
Dundas' appeal, of purchase by trustee at ms ow
sale OF the trust p0pss aceo%pg sne !. sSe 9ss
the full otherwise In sucn case IN
sale always yodable At me opuen Of tne es % gse
there is distinct and clear contract ana tnete Is
fraud Qr eonoeament Hill on Trustees o5l Ooes "
Ireeothioh, vesey JT ~ hsneS & tns Ss''a {rS "a
the the transaction IL shown TO be nte
with fraud legal equitable and tnen the trust arises nc
under q BILL but, before stated. is implied from Tn
nature Of the circumstances which surround the tansa
tion: OF such trust the Orphans court has no luri
dlction-
prohibits trustee from purchasing OF his csff
free from fraud IL Is nos too much TO say that
particularly where the parties not dividing upo
equal where the one was in possession of ino
nation not accessible to the other and failed to comm
nicate the same mu II there any groun
believe there ntation by the one
Withholding of facts which the other was entitled
In the case of Coles Trecohick above LoI
Chancellor Iclcon) says - trustee may buy from q
que trust provided there IS distinct and clear co
ascerained be such after jealous and scrupul0
examination of all the circumstances pIoding that n
resti trust Intended the trustee should Duy and the
is fraud, conceannent by the trustee OF into
nation acquired BY him in the character OF trustee
admit it is difficult case TO make out yheneyer il is 90
all against the trustee nd the burdl