The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-03-27

Twenty Years of LitignttOn-The Jack e
son Hollow Operty-TmpOrtant De-
cisiOn.
Before Judge Gilbert.
The property known as the Jackson Hollow Es
tate, in the Seventh ward, has been in litigation.
Yesterday Judge Gilbert rendered an important
decision in the suit OF stephen q. Jackson VS..
Benjamin Andrews and others, involving this prop.
erty, which is valued at over 100000. 1t was very
much embarrassed by taxes, &C., and the defend
ant was retained to relieve IT, receiving a trust
deed from plaintifi. The latter brought suit TO
recover possession, and the defendant agreed to
renquish it II Jackson would pay the expense OF
freeing 1t.
Judge Gilbert's opinion is as follows This case
stands upon plain and well established principles
of equity. he defendant Benjamin Andrews, I'M
for the purpose OF extricating him from
his embarrassments. The means of doing
veyances and trust deed with compre-
nensive powers, quitclaims and releases were
in turn executed by the plaintiff Some OF these
were taken under direction OF or in concert with
Benjamin Andrews. The ostensibie purpose OF all
OF them was to enable him TO carry out the object
he had undertaken Tor the plaintiffs benefit. The
result is that the plaintiff has, by the which
has been made OF these same instruments, been
stripped Of his property, and 1t has become vested
purchased through Benjamin Andrews acting as
agent for them. None of them are purchasers in
good aith Such is my conclusion upon the facts,
after a careful examination OF the testimony and
OF the defendants brief 1t is very evident that
Tie result stated Deen accomplished Dy means
OF the confidence which the. plaintif reposed
in BENJAMIN Andrews, and the Influences
which his protested relations to him in
spred In all such cases the title to relief
In a court OF equity Is clear. Its jurisdiction IS
not limited to cases between trustee and cestui
que trust guardian and ward, solicitor and client,
ana the Ike but extends to every case where in
iuence Is acquired and abused or where conf.
dence Is reposed and BETRAYED: Gardner VS.. Og-
den, 20 n. T., 342; Smith VS.. Kay, H. l.. Cases.
1901 The sale under the mortgage, that under the
power contained IN the deed to John Andrews and
the various purchases OF individuals had no effect
on the equitable right which the plantlr Is assert
ing here, for the reason that those who acquired
under which such title was taken with notice
OF plaintiffs equities. Nor Is the plaintiff con-
cluded by the legal effect OF the deeds under which
such titles are now held Having been
complish the object which he had undertaken
for the plaintlf's beneft, he could not, nor could
any one In prlvlty with him, or who had notice of
his relations to the plantifi, acquire any interest
In hostility to the trust he had assumed. lie who
undertakes to act for another IN any matter shall
not in the same matter act for himself. II he does
he will be declared trustee Tor the injured party
Terrett vs.. Crombie Saws 81, and causes clted),
and those who have awaited themselves OF his
breach OF trust, with notice thereof, stand In no
protection to the extent OF all advances and dis
bursements made and expenses and liabilities in
Cured by them in good faith, with interest. There
must be judgment for the plaintiff declaring
spectivey in the property IN question: In con-
iOrmity with this opinion, and 1t Is referred TO
Augustus Ford, Esq. 10 ascertain the amount OF
the claims OF the defendants respectively thereon,
parties upon the principles applicable to mort
cages in possession. All other questions are re-
served until the coming III and confirmation OF the
yrafaraa,s reuort