Court Opinion

ID: 9831207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:55:04.564345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.550996
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled. The authorities cited in our original opinion substantiate our holding that a constructive trust arose out of the transaction here involved. In Ruling Case Law it is said: “It is a well settled general rule that if one person obtains the legal title to property, not only by fraud, or by violation of confidence of fiduciary relations, but in any other unconscientious manner, so that he cannot equitably retain the property which really belongs to another, equity carries out its theory of a double ownership, equitable and legal, by .impressing a constructive trust upon - the property in favor of the one who is in good conscience entitled to it, and who is considered in equity as the beneficial owner.” 26 R.C.L. 1236.
In support of the text, the case of Drury v. Cross, 7 Wall. 299, 305, 19 L.Ed. 40, is cited. In that case the Supreme Court of the United States held that equity would raise a constructive trust in property when the legal title thereto had been secured by means of fraudulent scheme or device. That honorable Court said:
“The scheme to acquire the property of this corporation was, in its inception, fraudulent, and every step in the progress of its execution was necessarily stamped with the same character. * * * The fruits of such an adventure cannot be enjoyed by the parties concerned in it. * * *
“Cross, Luddington, and Scott [the defendants] must be held liable as trustees * * * tf
Motion overruled.