Shepherd v. M'Evers

4 Johns. Ch. 136
CourtNew York Court of Chancery
DecidedSeptember 8, 1819
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 4 Johns. Ch. 136 (Shepherd v. M'Evers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shepherd v. M'Evers, 4 Johns. Ch. 136 (N.Y. 1819).

Opinion

The Chanoellor,

Theophylact Bache was indebted, qn the 8th of June, 1807, to the house of Sauer, Eyre Sp Co, of which the plaintiff is the survivor. This appears very clearly from the -certificates of T. B: of the 22d of May, 1795, and the 17th of February, 1796, and front the testimony of J. O. Hoffman, JY, Van Antwerp, wad Andrew Bache. The last of these witnesses proves the confessions, of T. B. a short time before his death, in 1807, as to the existence and validity of the debt.

Being so indebted, T, B. on the 8th of June, 1807, conveyed his real estate in the city of New- York, and in the county of Essex, to the defendants M‘Evers and Lispenard,. in tvfist, to pay his debts, These defendants accepted that trust, and entered upon the execution of it, and it was not in their power, without the assent of the cestui que trusts, (of which the house of Sauer, Eyre Co. were one,) or without the direction of this court, to discharge- themselves of the trust. I take this to be a clear and settled rule of the. court. It appears, however, that on the 9th day of October, following, those defendants, without such assent or direction, united with T. B¿ in a conveyance of that estate to the other defendants, upon other trusts and conditions, which, in their operation, excluded the plaintiff from all benefit under either deed. This conveyance was evidently a breach of trust; and as the grantees in the second deed had knowledge, at the time, of the first deed, and of its contents, they became chargeable with the trusts contained in the, first deed. The vested interest of a cestui que trust, cannot be impaired or destroyed by such a voluntary act of the trustee, and the trust will follow the land in the hands of any person taking it with knowledge of the trust. Though a trust be created for the benefit of a third person, without his knowledge at the [139]*139timé, he may, afterwards, affirm the trust, and enforce its execution; (3 Johnson’s Ch. Rep 261.) but in this case, the trust was violated by the creation of a different trust, before the house of Sauer, Eyre, fy Co., ill England, had due opportunity to act under it.

I shall, accordingly, decree, that a reference be had to ascertain and report the amount of the plaintiff’s debt, as shown by the proofs and exhibits in this cause, after making all just allowances, and that the master take an account of the proceeds of the real estate mentioned in the deed of the 6th of June, 1797, and of the debts chargeable thereon, under the said deed, and how much of these proceeds has come to the hands of the defendants, or either of them, and of the investment and disposition of these proceeds, or any part thereof, by way of payment, or otherwise, or of the lands, or any part thereof, by the defendants, or any part of them, and that he have power to examine the parties upon oath, and to take such proof, by witnesses, not already ex.amined, as either party may produce, and that the question of costs, and all other questions, be, in the mean time, reserved.

Decree accordingly.

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

Related

In re the Accounting of Luckenbach
278 A.D. 114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)
Troy v. New York Trust Co.
258 A.D. 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
Grundy v. Broome
90 S.W.2d 939 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Wellbrock v. Roddy
169 A.D. 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
In Re the Accounting of Kellogg
108 N.E. 844 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Libby v. Frost
56 A. 906 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1903)
Reynolds v. Ætna Life Insurance
28 A.D. 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Bowdish v. Page
30 N.Y.S. 691 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Wadd v. Hazleton
17 N.Y.S. 410 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)
Voorhees v. Carpenter
26 N.E. 838 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
Brockmeyer v. Washington National Bank
40 Kan. 744 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1889)
Austin v. Austin
18 Neb. 306 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1885)
Jones v. McPhillips
77 Ala. 314 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Danner & Co. v. Brewer & Co.
69 Ala. 191 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Earle v. Earle
16 Jones & S. 18 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1881)
Garvey v. . Jarvis
46 N.Y. 310 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Thatcher v. Candee
4 Abb. Ct. App. 387 (New York Court of Appeals, 1866)
Hill v. McIntire
39 N.H. 410 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1859)
Hubbard v. Coolidge
42 Mass. 84 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1840)
Baldwin v. Porter
12 Conn. 473 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1838)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Johns. Ch. 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shepherd-v-mevers-nychanct-1819.