Case Name: Andrew J. Downs and Matilda L. Downs' Admr. v. Elijah Downs' Exr., et al.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1903-08-03
Citations: 75 Vt. 383
Docket Number: 
Parties: Andrew J. Downs and Matilda L. Downs' Admr. v. Elijah Downs' Exr., et al.
Judges: Present: Munson, Start, Watson, Stafford and Haselton, JJ.
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
Andrew J. Downs and Matilda L. Downs' Admr. v. Elijah Downs' Exr., et al.
May Term, 1903.
Present: Munson, Start, Watson, Stafford and Haselton, JJ.
Opinion filed August 3, 1903.
Equity — Jurisdiction—Trust—Remedy at law.
Tlie aid of a Court of equity cannot be invoked for tbe recovery of money held in trust, since an action at law can be maintained therefor.
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on defendant’s demurrer, at the June Term, 1902, Bennington County, Tyler, Chancellor.
Demurrer sustained and bill dismissed. The orators appealed.
Batchelder & Bates for the orators.
The bill sets forth a trust in that Mjatilda E-, becoming possessed of money, placed the same in the hands of her husband for care and investment. The claim' is purely equitable, and it could not have been allowed by commissioners. Spar-hawk v. Buell, 9 Vt. 74; Herrick v. Belknap, 27 Vt. 674; Brown v. Sumner, 31 Vt. 671.
Barber & Darling for the defendants.
The orator’s remedy is not in this Court, since there is another tribunal before which the claim can be adjudicated. Pomeroy Eq. Jur. s. 178; Currier v. Rosebrook, 48 Vt. 34.
Such tribunal exists in the commissioners appointed by the Probate Court. Spalding v. Warner’s Ust., 52 Vt. 29; Purdy v. Purdy’s Bsl., 67 Vt. 50; Albee v. Cole, 39 Vt. 319; 'Atkins’ Bst. v. Atkins’ Bst,, 69 Vt. 270.
Chancery will not interfere except in aid of the jurisdiction of the Probate Court. Davis v. Bastman, 66 Vt. 651; Adams v. Adams’ Bst., 22 Vt. 50.

Opinion:
Start, J.
The suit is in chancery, and is for the recovery of money alleged to have been held by Elijah Downs, in trust for his wife, Matilda E. Downs, who deceased before the bringing of the bill. The fact that the money sought to- be recovered was held in trust is the only ground upon which it is claimed that the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction. It has been held by this Court that money thus held may be recovered by an action at law. Parker v. Parker, 69 Vt. 352, 37 Atl. 712; Lynde v. Davenport, 57 Vt. 597; Atkins' Est. v. Atkins' Est., 69 Vt. 270, 37 Atl. 746; Spaulding v. Warner's Est., 52 Vt. 29; Albee v. Cole, 39 Vt. 319; Davis v. Eastman, 66 Vt. 651, 30 Atl. 1; Adams v. Adams, 22 Vt. 50; Purdy v. Purdy's Est., 67 Vt. 50, 30 Atl. 695. It appearing from the orator's bill of complaint that the cause of action is one over which the Courts of law have jurisdiction, the demurrer was rightfully sustained and the bill dismissed.
Decree affirmed, and cause remanded.