Court Opinion

ID: 9826772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:34:51.759022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:14.507440
License: Public Domain

ON Petition to Rehear.
The judgment creditor, W. L. Brown, has petitioned for a rehearing on the .ground that the court failed to act upon his assignments of error challenging the admissibility of the evidence tending to show that Claude Brown, President of Brown and Company, admitted that the title was held in trust for the benefit of complainant. We intended to overrule all of these assignments when we said:
*246“Admissions by the grantee subsequent to the conveyance amply confirm the existence of the trust and corroborate the testimony of Bishop Adrian. We think such admissions are competent against the grantee and those standing in privity with it. ’ ’
However, in view of the apparent uncertainty as to our holding on this question, it may not be out of place to deal with it more in detail.
In the brief supporting the petition to rehear, it is insisted that the testimony of Father Shea is incompetent because he was not present when the original transaction occurred and because his testimony as to what Claude Brown told him is hearsay and incompetent.
The testimony of this witness shows that he discussed the transaction with Claude Brown, demanded from time to time that Brown either sell the property or reconvey it to complainant; and that the witness finally succeeded in obtaining a reconveyance of the property to complainant. This testimony, if accepted, tends to show that Brown and Company, by act and conduct, dealt with the property in recognition of complainant’s rights as the beneficiary of the trust.
 The acts and conduct of Brown and Company inconsistent with ownership of the property in its own light are equally as expressive as any written or- spoken statement offered as an admission against interest would be and, we think, such evidence is admissible under the principles applicable to admissions and declarations. 20 Am. Jur. 475, 476.
We think the testimony of this witness and the testimony of other witnesses as to statements made by Claude Brown, as well as the recital in the “Certificates of Interest” that the property was held in trust for complainant, should be admitted as an admission by the judg*247ment debtor that the property was held in trust and not in its own right even though the statements attributed to Brown were made subsequent to the execution of the deed.
We pointed out in our original opinion that a declaration of trust by a grantor must be made before, or contemporaneous with the conveyance and cited Martin v. Lincoln, 72 Tenn. 334, 351, 4 Lea 334, 351, for this holding. By this we meant that the trust relationship must have been established before or at the time of the conveyance, not that admissions made by the alleged trustee subsequent to the conveyance are inadmissible against one standing in privity with the trustee.
It is the well recognized general rule that admissions are admitted whether made by one against whom a trust is asserted or by one who is asserting a trust, irrespective of the time when the admission was made. 54 Am. Jur., 476, Trusts, Sec. 617.
“Statements of a debtor while he is in possession of real or personal property and in disparagement of his title thereto are competent against an attaching or execution creditor, provided the statements were made prior to the time at which the specific rights of the creditor as against such property accrued.” 31 C. J. S., Evidence, Sec. 336, p. 1110:
For the reasons indicated we are constrained to adhere to our original opinion that all of the assignments should be overruled and the decree affirmed.
Hale and Burnett, JJ., concur.