Case Name: Gray v. Reamer, &c.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1874-03-18
Citations: 11 Bush 113
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gray v. Reamer, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 113–120

Head Matter:
Case 18 — PETITION EQUITY
March 18, 1874.
Gray v. Reamer, &c.
APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.
A co-trustee acting POR conpormity, merely to enable another who takes upon himself the more responsible duties of an active trustee, to transmit or acquire title or make collections, is not in general responsible for the estate thus coming to the hands of the active trustee.
But a co-trustee seeking to escape liability on the ground that he had ■ acted merely for conformity should raise that issue in his pleadings, and the burden would be on him of showing that the active trustee alone collected and controlled the fund.
For Appellant, R. W. Woolley, \ G. M. Davie, . . J
CITED
Perry on Trusts, sections 420, 416.
Williams on Executors, 1549.
Bacon’s Abridgment, “ Executors,” D, sec. 2.
Story’s Equity PI', secs. 889, 890, 332, 885.
Tidd’s Practice, 712.
Littell’s S. C. 123, 235.
Newman’s PL & Pr. p. 717.
2 Leading Cases in Equity, p. 468.
1 Harris & Gill, 11, Ringgold v. Ringgold.
8 Watts & Serg. 143.
5 Howard, 275, Taylor v. Benham.
3 Sandford’s Ch’y, 22, 103.
3 Bibb, 97, Moore v. Tandy.
3 Mon. 95, South’s heirs v. Hoy.
7 B. Mon. 15, Collins v. Carlisle’s heirs.
7 Dana, 450, Young v. Wickliffe.
8 Smede & Marshall, 682, Smith v. Hurd.
3 Ala. 83. 99 Mass. 196.
7 Grattan, 114. 2 Penn. 419.
5 Johnson’s Ch. 283. 2 Brock, 434.
4 Watts & Serg. 147. Hardin, 258.
7 Bush, 604, Robinson v. Williamson.
2 Dickens, 441.
3 Dana, 498, Greenwade v. Greenwade.
1 Dana, 144, Bates v. Courtney.
4 Mon, 365, Taylor v. Whiting.
4 How. Pr. Rep. 175, Speer v. Cutler.
1 Paige, 124, Hurd v. Everitt.
1 Daniell’s Ch. Pl. & Pr. 402.
3 Bland, 9, Walsh v. Smyth.
1 Irish Eq. 56, O’Grady v. Barry.
5 Howard, U. S. 275, Taylor v. Benham.
7 Johnson’s Ch. 22.
1 Bush, 443, Wickliffe v. Breckinridge.
2 Bush, 62, Petree v. Bell.
2 Bush, 236, Deposit Bank of Cynthiana v. Berry. 2 Co wen, 781. r
11 Paige, 299, Spencer v. Spencer.
10 Yerger, 264, Deaderick v. Cantrell.
10 Yerger, 400, Thomas v. Scruggs.
10 Peters, 562, Peter v. Beverly.
14 Johnson, 446.
21 Howard, Pr. Rep. 285. AVard v. Kalbfleisch.
28 Conn. 466, Hoyt v. Smith.
11 Ga. 539, Carey v. Smith.
10 Peters, 562, Peter v. Beverly.
J. A. Beattie,.........For Appellees,
CITED
Civil Code, section 49. 17 Penn. St. 270.
Hill on Trustees, s. p. 313.
3 Bush, 79, Storms v. Storms.
5 Johns. Ch. 283, Morrell v. Morrell.
2 Story’s Equity Ju. secs. 1275, 1280. '
2 White & Tudor’s Leading Cases, s. pp. 654, 655.
2 Iredell’s Eq. 594, Hauser, &c. v. Lehman.
7 Gill & J. 157, Macubbin v. Cromwell.
1 Harr. & Gill, 11, Ringgold v. Ringgold.
2 Brock. 434, Wallis v. Thornton.
7 Dana, 450, Young v. Wickliffe.
11 Paige’s Ch. R. 299, Spencer v. Spencer.
10 Yerger, 264, Deaderiek v. Cantrell.

Opinion:
CHIEF JUSTICE HARDIN
delivered the opinion op the court.
The essential question to be decided in this case, and the only one we regard of 'importance, is as to the correctness of the decision of the chancellor in holding the appellant equally liable with Henry W. Gray for the trust funds, which, according to the appellant's own pleading, were solely derived from the sale to Robinson of the h'ouse.and lot on Fourth Street, in the city of Louisville.
The principle stated by the counsel for the appellant to the effect that a co-trustee acting under a power for conformity merely to enable another, who takes on himself the more responsible duties of ah active trustee, to transmit or acquire titles or make collections is not in general responsible for the estate thus coming to the hands of the acting trustee, is fully admitted, as we think it is well maintained by the arguments and citations of authorities presented by the counsel. But if the appellant does not sufficiently admit by his answer in this case that he actively co-associated with Henry W. Gray in the collection of the funds in controversy, as is contended for the appellees, we are of the opinion, from the pleadings and exhibits copied in the record, that the burden was oh the appel lant of proving that although he joined in the sale to Robinson and acted as trustee in making re-investments, Henr.y W. Gray alone collected and controlled the money in controversy. This he wholly failed to do, and we are therefore constrained to sustain the conclusions of the chancellor upon the state of case presented by the record.
' Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.