Court Opinion

ID: 9760676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:08:12.398592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:15.652253
License: Public Domain

MASSEY, Chief Justice
(concurring).
The writer readily agreed with the author of the opinion in this case upon the main question controlling the greater part of the property in controversy. However, my decision upon the matter of whether or not the appellant might have inherited some interest in the property upon the death of his grandfather occasioned certain difficulties.
I became convinced that the holdings were correct after reading Bogert on Trusts and Truste.es, p. 8 et seq., “Constructive Trusts”, sec. 472, “Theory of Creation”, and the neighboring sections. In the cited section it is stated: “If A (person in position of the grandfather in this case) has died after the wrongful obtaining of his property, his cause of action to get the constructive trust passes as realty or personalty, dependent on the character of the res involved. If the defendant is wrongfully holding real property, A’s heirs or devisees take the right to obtain the constructive trust; if the interest inequitably held by the defendant is personalty, A’s personal representatives or legatees succeed to A’s right to impress a constructive trust * *
The appellant inherited an interest in the property of his grandfather, if any the latter had. However, he could not have inherited any part of the cause of action to impress a constructive trust. That cause of action was against himself. Therefore all rights in and to the cause of action were bound to have passed to other heirs of the grandfather. Such cause of action was unimpaired and was to impress a constructive trust as to the full interest of such deceased in the property. By the judgment entered (subsequent to the death of said deceased) all beneficial interest in the property was taken from the appellant as of the date the judgment became final. There is no necessity to dwell here upon other situations possible to be hypothesized and exciting to contemplate for they are not at issue. If any error is existent it is not one such as would entitle the appellant to overthrow the judgment rendered.