Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Sullivan

1924 OK 819, 229 P. 1115, 103 Okla. 78, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 244
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 30, 1924
Docket13746
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 1924 OK 819 (Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Sullivan, 1924 OK 819, 229 P. 1115, 103 Okla. 78, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 244 (Okla. 1924).

Opinion

Opinion by

RAY, O.

The question to be decided is whether the petition of plaintiff states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The only question presented by the briefs of the parties arises upon the interpretation of a written instrument, made an exhibit to the petition, designated as a “Declaration of Trust.” The question is, Did the written instrument create a trust or did it create a partnership? If the written instrument created a trust, the demurrer was properly sustained; if a partnership, the judgment must be reversed.

The defendants 'undertook to associate themselves, together with others, in the form of a trust under the provisions of chapter 16, Session Laws 1919, being sections 8465, 8466, 8467, and 8468, Comp. Stat. 1921, for the purpose of engaging in the general manufacturing and bottling business, compounding, mixing, and manufacturing of cola, syrups, etc., and to market the same, and generally to do whatever was necessary to successfully carry on that business. To that end they executed the agreement in question.

It is suggested in the brief of plaintiff in error that this was an attempt upon the *79 part of the defendants to create what is known as a common law trust. Whether it was the purpose to create the trust under the common law, or under the statute, or under the right of the parties to contract, is not material. Whether the one or the other, the same rules for determining whether the instrument created a trust or a partnership are applicable. The principal distinguishing feature of a trust is that the legal title is in the trustee with equitable, or beneficial, right in another, but with full power to control and manage the trust property as owner without direction or interference from the beneficiary.

The distinction between a trust and a partnership is clearly pointed out in Frost v. Thompson (Mass.) 106 N. E. 1009:

“A declaration of trust or other instrument providing for the holding of property by trustees for the benefit of the owners of assignable certificates representing the beneficial interest in the property may create a trust ór it may create a partnership. Whether it is the one or the other depends upon the way in which the trustees are to conduct the affair committed to their charge. If they act as principals and aiyS free from the control of the certificate holders, a trust is created; but if they are subject to the control of the certificate holders, it is a partnership.” \

This distinction has been recognized in the following cases: Home v. Chmielinski, (Mass.) 130 N. E. 56: Horgan v. Morgan, (Mass.) 124 N. E. 32; Priestly v. Burrill; (Mass.) 120 N. E. 100; Dana v. Treasurer and Receiver General (Mass.) 116 N. E. 941; Williams v. Boston (Mass.) 94 N. E. 808; Ricker v. American Loan and Trust Co. (Mass.) 5 N. E. 284; Hoadly v. County Commissioners of Essex, 105 Mass. 519; Whitman v. Porter, 107 Mass. 522; McCamey v. Hollister Oil Co. (Tex.) 241 S. W. 6S9: Williams v. Milton (Mass.) 102 N. E. 355; Mayo v. Moritz (Mass.) 24 N. E. 1083; Rice v. Rockefeller (N. V.) 31 N. E. 907; Crocker v. Malley, 249 U. S. 223, 63 L. Ed. 573, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 270.

“Where the trustees hold title to all property and are free from the will of the beneficiaries, then a trust is created; but if the beneficiaries have the power to remove a trustee or in any way control his action in so far as he is fulfilling his duty as trustee, then a partnership is created.” Dunn, Business Trusts, p. 230.

The applicable sections of the statulte are as follows:

“Section 8465. Express trusts, may be created in real or personal property or both, with power in the trustee, or a majority of the trustees, if there be more than ■ one, to receive title to, hold, buy, sell, exchange, transfer and convey real and personal property for the use of such trust; to take, receive, invest or disburse the receipts, earnings, rents, profits or returns from the trust estate; to carry on and conduct any lawful business designated in the instrument of trust, and generally to do any lawful act in relation to such trust property which any individual owning the same absolutely might do.”
“Section 8466. No such express trust shall be valid unless created, first, by a written instrument subscribed by the grantor or grantors duly acknowledged as conveyances oí real estate are acknowledged, and recorded in the office of the county clerk of each county wherein is situated any real estate conveyed to such trustee, as well as in the county where the principal property is located or business conducted; or, second, by a will duly executed, as required by the law of the state. Such express trust shall. be. limited in the duration thereof either to a definite period of the life or lives of the beneficiary or beneficiaries thereof. The instrument creating the trust shall specify the period of duration thereof within the limitations herein provided.”
“Section 8467. Instruments creating express trusts! may provide for succession to any trustee, ‘in case of the death, resignation, removal, or i.ncapaeity of such trustee. In case of any spch succession, the title to the trust property shall at once vest. in the succeeding trustee.” j
“Section 84.68. Liability to .third persons for any set,/ omission) ór obligation of a trustee or trastees of an expr/ss trust when acting in §uch capacity, shal/'extend to the whole of the trust estate held by such trustee or trustees, or so much thereof as- may be necessary to discharge such liability, but no personal liability shall attach to the-trustee or the beneficiaries of such trust for any such act, omission or liability.”

It will be observed that these sections (chapter 16, Session Laws of 1919) authorizing- the creation of trusts, .empower the trustee to do any lawful act in relation to the trust property which any individual owning the same absolutely might do. The trust must be created by written instrument and limited in duration to a definite period of time, not to exceed 21 years, or to the period of the life or lives of the beneficiaries, and the instrument creating the trust shall specify the period of duration within the limitation provided. Section 8467 provides for the succession to any trustee in case of death, resignation, removal, or incapacity of trustee.

The instrument in question, by its terms, would create a trust according to the above cited authorities and under the statute, except for the power of control reserved *80 by the instrument to the shareholders, and the restrictions upon the power of the trustees to control the trust property, as owners, contained in the following provisions of the instrument:..

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

Related

State v. Prairie Cotton Oil Co.
1937 OK 478 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Levy v. Nellis
1 N.E.2d 251 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1936)
Stanolind Crude Oil Purchasing Co. v. State Bd. of Equal.
1935 OK 833 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Hayden Plan Co. v. Wood
275 P. 248 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1924 OK 819, 229 P. 1115, 103 Okla. 78, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liquid-carbonic-co-v-sullivan-okla-1924.