Court Opinion

ID: 9833884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:07:06.091787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:08.487771
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We wish first to correct an error in our original opinion wherein we stated that appellant Parks was to sell the leases so as to net the lessors $65 an acre, and that he was to receive one-half of whatever the leases sold for above $65 an acre; the correct amount being $60 per acre.
The appellees in their motion for a rehearing insist that the facts of this case, although by parol, are sufficient to establish a conveyance in trust of the property to the appellant Parks for the purpose of permitting Parks as trustee to sell the property .for them at the price of $60 per acre, and, if Parks should sell the property for more than $60 per acre, the lessors were to receive one-half of such excess.
We are inclined to the view that appellees’ contention under the uniform holdings of the courts of this state must be sustained. Hickernell v. Gregory (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 691, 694. Such a trust is known as an active trust, and, under the authorities, passes to the trustee both the legal and equitable title to the property conveyed. Montgomery v. Truehart (Tex. Civ. App.) 146 S. W. 284; Fidelity Lbr. Co. v. Bendy et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 245 S. W. 981. Such a trust may not be terminated at the will of the cestui que trust. Easton et al. v. Demuth et al., 179 Mo. App. 722, 162 S. W. 294.
*325No time was specified in the trust agreement in which Parks was to sell the leases; therefore it devolved upon appellees to allege and prove that a reasonable time, which the law contemplates in the absence of an agreement, in which Parks had to perform had expired, and the record reflects that appellees have made no such case.
It having been concluded that the property was conveyed under a trust agreement* and not a sale, to Parks, the questions raised' by appellees with reference to their rights as holders of a vendor’s lien will not be discussed, since such rights only arise where there is a sale of the property.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.