Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-12-03

beneficiaries. The trustee Is used
as a conduit, 50 to speak, to pass the
title, Without requiring him to do
anything.
One question is whether the Law
executes the tiust at once, and vests
the legal title in the cestui que
trusts or Leneficiaries. The statute
Of uses in England would execute II.
1t might not have done so at some
periods, because it might have been
regarded rs use upon use, hut
not 80 in this country. Here the
deed passes the fee, and the right to
the seisin ct once, and the only
trust here is one in favor Of the
cssttd que trusts.
The question further L., inasmuch
as Mary Ison Blaz.ard continued in
the possession OF this prop rty. and
never expressly at least renounced
the trust, but continued to hold the
possession and 10 exercise acts OF
ownership over the property, and
that the defendants continued to do
so after her death (which was but a
short time before the guilt was COM
menced), whether she should be re-
CARED rs holding for these plain
tiffs, the lawful heirs, or whether
she should be regarded as holding
adversely to them. II her rights
and her possession are regarded as
adverse to them, then the statute OF
limitations would apply.
The general rule of law IL that
the statute Of limitations does not
ratrN h q
IL; and in that case the law Is that
the statute will not commence TO
run until the trustee, by some.quivo-
cal conduct, brought TO the atten-
ton of the cestIa que trust, renoun-
ces the trust. IL IL said in this case
that Sarah Blizzard. the lawful
wife, several yesrs previous to the
| death OF John III. Blizzard, on ac-
count Of his cruel treatment towards |
her. and, there Is evidence 10 show,
partly on account Of his marrying
another woman, left him ami went
some three hundred miles into the
county Of Washington, near ST.
George, and lived there; that they
were Ignorant, and neither she nor
her children were informed rs to |
their rights, and that they never |
had any notice that Mary Ison |
BlazzIrd was holding this property |
adversely 10 them, or holding il sub
ject TO the provisions OF the will and |
not in accordance with the trust |
provided. / am Of the opinion that
where atrustee remains In possession
and control Of the property, the |
statute Of limitations will not apply, |
unlesson account Of laches. In these
eases Of equity the law by analogy
applies the statute Of limitations
very often where, as before stated,
by unequivocIl adverse possession,
where the trustee has brought the
fact to the attention Of his bene-
iciaries that he Is holding adversely
TO them, and renounces the trust,
the statute Of limitations will be APP
piled. / am of the opinion that the
statute of limitations should not ap-
ply to the Fourteenth Ward tract.
The other tract stan!s upon diff
ferent principles. Lydia Blazzsrd
was living upon that property. She
was holding and claiming TO hold
by virtue OF the will. That will
the possession and use of il, and
Immediately on her death, ac-
cooling TO the will, IL passed to
these heir-. She and her children
were in possession some eighteen
or nineteen years n possession that
was hostile 10 the trustee under
this deed. 1t is tue that Lydia
BisZZarl and her children recog-
niZed Mary 1sOn Blazzard as the
eXecutrix Of the estate, and recog-
niZsd her as having some rights
with respect TO the property under
the will, and as executrix; but the
evidence l think shows that Lydia
for her children never recognized
the right Of Mary Ison Blazzlri as
trustee for these plaintiffs. Lydia
claims by virtue Of the will, and her
children claim by virtue OF the will.
IL il true that the will did not pass
the title TO them, but they claimed
II, anu held possession accounting to
u; and If anyone had gone there
and asked Lydia Blazzlri what her
claim was TO that property, she
would have said that she claimed il
because the will gave her the
right 10 il, aud gave her children
the right 10 M I do not think
the evidence would leave any
room for Doubt on that point Sb.
claims under the provisions OF the
will and the plaintiffs claim
under the provision OF the deed.
The deed they say gave the prop
erty To thsm- Lydia Biazzart and
her children say that the will gives
II TO them. Their possession and
claim was aptagonistic. and was
hostile TO the claim Of Mary Ison
BIazzlni and these ces,,,i ami
trusts under The deed
The question tlereGore arises will
the statute Of limitations by analogy :
apply 10 this case? Here i a hostile I
and claim in direct con- !
flict with the claim of these plain-
tifIs and with III. claim of Mary Ison
Bisz,,ni as sire musf bsv.. ma,Ie II ,
il She were hoIiino fur the nl,intifIs
Lydia Rl,zIard ,loes NOT Claim nm !
he 81 i'ns nneer Tho nrovis;ons of
the will aud lhat line will Controlled
In. rigbt and .ho,,lI transfsr /, y
fIom Mary Ism RI;zzani under :
Inc J,.d n bcr whe,ess The
nI,infifIs CLAIM, Thar The
iced nass.d n 10 Thorn. and asT
mink tbat that nravisi9, of the
.t,i,Ite ~ ns.s would an,.jv which s
could mas. the title IN tLen, n they ],
demanded II bec.nse am Of tbs v
,r.injon that that stst,,te NJ mss IL n
.eea,,Ied ne messing with the com.
non law ;r.o ,his s.o,,,trv ami thjs b
err;torv ha;ng seitIsJ m nv a.. n
,eonI. az the I7,i,,sI S,.t,.s VINO had Il
,,Ionte,, the common iaw tbe CON- b
non Jaw wss ~ ~. br,rgI,t win Il
hen, ~ we'll Ne This sta,nt. ~ nses "
snt i A., -, tha o,';,;oa ,hs, inas- C
n,,ch ~ the nos;,ian -. Nj,rv fen
IN tbis Eanr..sn,b wsr,i
,roce,tr, ,sa. ~ -, sa,irn,.ar It,
80 80 1855 eteA'SNest cAt | n