Court Opinion

ID: 5550778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-10 21:35:21.497293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:05.463228
License: Public Domain

The Assistant Vice-Chancellor,
said the inferences from the testimony, were adverse to any intentional fraud on the part of Stephen Baker 2d, but it was not necessary to dispose of the case on that ground. It was perfectly clear that he obtained the property which was conveyed to him under the surrogate’s order of sale, by a breach of trust, or by taking advantage of his situation as a trustee, to make the purchase. In equity therefore, he became a trustee of the land for the heirs, with a right to have his advances refunded to him. The surrogate’s orders establish the fact, that the intestate’s debts were outstanding, and the sale necessary.
The trust which fastened upon the land in the hands of S. Baker 2d, continued attached to it when conveyed to the present claimants. Every person deriving title from him, is chargeable with notice of the trust, by the deed which originated his title, .and which discloses on its face, that he bought at a sale made by himself and another, as administrators. The complainant is thus entitled to recover one-eleventh of the premises.
It is objected, that her remedy is barred by lapse of time, but this is not correct. When her right of action accrued, she was under the disability of coverture, which continued without interruption till 1827. At that time, there was no statutory limitation .of suits against trustees. The revised statutes, in 1830, prescribed a limit of ten years. If those statutes applied to existing causes of action, (and a year since, the assistant vice-chancellor said he had held they did not,) this suit was brought within the time limited after the statutes took effect.
As to the objection, that the complainant’s, remedy was adequate at law, it is undoubtedly well taken as to the lands not included in the administrator’s deed. There is no trust as to those, and this court has no jurisdiction. But as to the residue, there is no force in the objection. The deed was not void, nor could S, Baker 2d, have repudiated it. It was voidable, at the instance of the heirs, and the subject being one of trust, it is peculiarly the province of equity to afford the remedy.
*597There must be a decree for the complainant accordingly, limited to the lands conveyed by the administrator's deed.