Opinion ID: 2617289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Power of Sale.

Text: The trustee undertook, by the compromise, to sell some of the property of the trust. It is stated in 65 C.J. 730, § 594: In the absence of express or implied authority conferred by the instrument creating the trust, and in the absence of the voluntary consent of all the beneficaries, a trustee is under no duty to sell and convey the corpus of the trust property and has no power to do so. (Italics are ours.) Many cases are cited. In 2 Beach on Trusts and Trustees, § 449, the author states: The power to sell the trust estate is not inherent to the office of a trustee in an ordinary trust. Under ordinary circumstances this power cannot be exercised unless it is conferred by the instrument by which the trust is created, or by a decree of the court. In 3 Bogart, Trusts and Trustees, § 742, the author states: If the trustee has no express or implied power of sale and cannot procure such authority through the somewhat extra-ordinary means of legislative act, he must apply to the court of equity or other court to whom power is given by statute to sanction a sale. In 2 Scott on Trusts, § 190.3, the author states: Where the terms of the trust do not clearly authorize or prohibit the sale of trust property, the existence or non-existence of a power of sale may depend upon the character of the property in question. In § 190 of the Restatement of Trusts, it is stated: The trustee can properly sell trust property if (a) a power of sale is conferred in specific words, or (b) such sale is necessary or appropriate to enable the trustee to carry out the purpose of the trust     The trust in the case as bar, did not, so far as appears, owe any debts. No specific power of sale was conferred. There is no indication in the record whatever that it was necessary or appropriate to sell part of its property to carry out the purpose of the trust. On the contrary, the property sold under the so-called compromise was property belonging to the quarry or plant owned by the trust and, we take it, was necessary for the operation thereof, otherwise it would hardly have been acquired. It would seem to be clear that under the facts and the authorities above cited, the trustee had no power to sell the property attempted to be sold to the defendant without the consent of the beneficiaries. A trustee ought not to be permitted to mutilate the property of a trust so as to frustrate the purpose for which it was acquired. The defendant is not an innocent purchaser. He was himself one of the beneficiaries in the trust involved herein. We conclude, accordingly, that the sale of such property to him was not authorized and was null and void. And since the agreement to dismiss the lawsuit is inextricably interwoven with the agreement to sell and is based on the same consideration, it must share a like fate.