The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1908-01-23
Amos X. Butler and Samuel W. Phil

unrecorded deed running to the Co
burns; that Butler and Philbrick were
and are respectively the attorney and
agent of the other defe ndants; that,
by reason OF their being such attor-
ney and such agent, they had an OPP
portunity to learn the condition of
the title, and in whom the title APP
peared by the record to stand, and in
the absence of such an recorded
deed and by its Suppression, who held
the title thereto, anH that the title
might be procured of other parties
and perfected otherwise than by
placing said unrecorded deed upon
record. The bill further alleges in
substance that Butler and Philbrick,
while they were the attorney and
agent of the other defendants, pro-
cured and caused to be recorded GER
tain deeds by which the interests of
the Eastman and Colby heirs were
conveyed to them, and these con-
vey ances were obtained with intent
of depriving the plaintiffs of all their
rights in the Colby tract, and of all
the rights they would have had il the
unrecorded deed had been recorded
the conveyances to Butler & Phil
brick now taking the place of and
superceding the title conveyed by
the unrecorded deed; and that the
conveyances were taken by Butler
and Philbrick with knowledge OF the
trust for the plaintiffs. And the bill
prays that Butler and Philbrick may
be ordered to quit claim their inter
ests to the plaintiffs and to account.
81 find in the first place that none
of the allegations respecting an un-
recorded deed are proved.
~ find that the Eastman interests
were conveyed to MIR. Philbrick by
deed dated Oct. 10. 1901, recorded in
1902, and one half of the same con-
veyed by him to Mr.. Butler by deed
dated July IS, 1902, and recorded in
1903. find that the Colby interests
were conveyed to Mr.. Philbrick by
two deeds, one dated Aug. 8, 1908,
and the other August 10, 1908, and
that Mr.. Philbrick conveyed one UNI
divided half of the same to Mr.. But
Ter by deed dated Sept. I, 1903.
81 find that the purchases of these
interests were made on the joint ac-
count of Philbrick and Butler. Mr..
Philbrick by prearrangement took
the deeds in his own name, and after
wards conveyed half to Mr.. Butler.
find that Philbrick and Butler made
the purchases on their own account
and not on account of the Coburn
heirs, and that they paid for them out
of their own funds. At the time they
knew of the plaintiffs claims, or of
enough to make them chargeable
with notice.
"At the time they made their pur-
chases their relations with the Co.
burn heirs, as attorney and agent,
were such, in my opinion, as made it
their duty to disclose to the Coburn
heirs any information they had re-
specting any defects which existed to
the Coburn title. Mr.. Philbrick had
been told there were defects several
years before ne became agent. He
communicated some or all of his in
formation to Mr.. Butler.
sIn 1899 Mr.. Butler was employed
by the Coburn heirs to make an alb
stract of the title to 4, r. 8. He did
SO, made an abstract showing the de-
fects and gave it to MIR. Philbrick, as
the agent, and Mr.. Philbrick placed
it on file, where it was open to in
spection by the heirs. But the heirs,
fifteen in number, were widely scat
tered, and it is not shown that they
all saw the abstract or knew of the
defects prior to the purchase by
Philbrick and Butler. But | think
that since the purchases, the Coburn
heirs have acquiesced and asseDted
to the purchases by Philbrick and
Butler. At any rate, ] think Phil
brick and Butler are now accountable
to no one else. The matter now lies,
| think, wholly between the Coburn
heirs and Philbrick and Butler.
L have held that the Coburns and
the Hills are equitable co-tenants in
4. 400 acres and no more. They were
both co.tenants with the Eastmans
and CoIhvs. The Coburns. as CO.
CehalIs III .he INV ai ;r3e,.."ta ., th nv
Eastmans and Colbvs. The interests
of the Eastmans and Colbys were not
outstanding titles as against the 4,4oo
acres ANY one might laWiuiy puy
and aae tbem sold to third persons. or
lawfully assent to sale after it was
made to their agent and attorney.
Sucn saie a,u nov so an 49, She risn IT, -,
"Nor in nv Judgment did the Hills
have any equitable interest under tue
invalid tax title which will afford
mem equioaole rene. asains. one "no
me Gobnrns nureb ased the interests
of the other co tenants on his own
account. The only equitable interest
when they owned was III Ihe 4'foo