Opinion ID: 2617289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Duty and Liability of One Cestui Que Trust to the Others.

Text: It is stated in 65 C.J. 545, § 299: One cestui que trust cannot acquire rights in, or with respect to, the trust estate, which are antagonistic to or will give him an advantage over his associates in interest. In 1A Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, § 191, the author states: Cestuis are owners of equitable interests in the same res and are generally tenants in common. They are in a fiduciary relation to each other in the sence that one co-cestui may not secretly get for himself a special advantage in the trust administration. See also 2 Scott on Trusts, § 253. In Re DuPlaine's Estate, 185 Pa. 332, 39 A. 947, 948, 40 L.A.R. 552, the court stated: `It has been settled that where there is a community of interest there is a community of duty; each of those interested must be faithful to himself, and equally as well to all the others interested. He can secure no advantage over the others because he has found out something they do not know, or because perhaps he is in a better position to protect himself than are they. The rule of law as stated in Keech v. Sandford, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq. (4th Am. Ed.) 64, has been followed in numerous cases in this state. Whenever one person is placed in such relations to another, by the act or consent of that other, or by the act of a third person, or by the law, that he becomes interested for him, or interested with him, in any subject of property or business, he is prohibited from acquiring rights in that subject antagonistic to the person with whose interest he has become associated. This doctrine was enforced in Weaver v. Wible, 25 Pa. St. 270, the syllabus of which is as follows: When several persons have a joint or common interest in an estate, one cannot purchase an incumbrance or an outstanding title, and set it up against the rest, for the purpose of depriving them of their interests. Chief Justice Lewis, in delivering the opinion, said: Community of interest produces community of duty.     It is the duty of all to deal candidly and benevolently with each other, and to cause no harm to their joint interests.   ' In the case at bar the defendant, as already stated, was one of the cestui que trust of the trust here involved. That he attempted to overreach his co-cestuis, represented in this suit by Mrs. Spencer, is obvious. He sought to settle a suit for $20,700 secretly while Miller, the attorney for the trustees and one of the cestui que trust, was absent, imparting a wrong flavor to the transaction. If his transaction with Mrs. Spencer should not be set aside for that reason alone, it should at least be carefully scrutinized.