De Laurencel v. De Boom

48 Cal. 581, 1874 Cal. LEXIS 206
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1874·No. No. 4,121·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

The letter from the testator, Jean Corneille De Boom,, dated on the same day on which the will was executed, and directed to the defendant, Romain De Boom, the sole devisee under the will, explains the trust upon which the testator intended to devise the estate; and we are of opinion that when the defendant, during the life-time of the testator, accepted, in writing, the terms of the trust, and bound himself to execute it faithfully, this created a valid trust, which a Court of equity will enforce. The presumption is, that the testator would have revoked or modified the will, except for the fact that the defendant, by a solemn instrument, ac[586]*586cepted the trust, and promised to execute it. It would be a fraud upon the testator and upon cestui que trusts to permit the defendant to repudiate the trust, on the faith of which the estate was devised to him.

Order refusing .to dissolve the injunction-affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

De Laurencel v. De Boom, 48 Cal. 581, 1874 Cal. LEXIS 206 (Cal. 1874).

48 Cal. 581 (De Laurencel v. De Boom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sears v. Rule
163 P.2d 443 (California Supreme Court, 1945)
Weinstein v. Moers
279 P. 444 (California Supreme Court, 1929)
O'Neil v. Ross
277 P. 123 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Temple v. City of Coleman
245 S.W. 264 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
In Re Estate of Lyon
127 P. 75 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Winder v. Scholey
83 Ohio St. (N.S.) 204 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1910)
Ahrens v. . Jones
62 N.E. 666 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
Trustees of Amherst College v. Ritch
45 N.E. 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1897)
Orth v. Orth
42 N.E. 277 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Curdy v. Berton
5 L.R.A. 189 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Williams v. Vreeland
32 N.J. Eq. 135 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1880)
Clarke v. Ransom
50 Cal. 595 (California Supreme Court, 1875)