Whiting v. Dyer

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Whiting v. Dyer

43 A. 181, 21 R.I. 278, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 47

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 24, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 A. 181 (Whiting v. Dyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whiting v. Dyer, 43 A. 181, 21 R.I. 278, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 47 (R.I. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The bill alleges that, at the commissioner’s sale of real estate owned by Sophia Dyer, in which the complainant’s mother, Lydia A. Whiting, had a life lease, she agreed with the respondent, her nephew, that he should appear for her at the sale to purchase the estate for her, on account of which agreement others did not bid, and that the *279 respondent purchased the estate at an inadequate price in his own name, and now holds it. The prayer is thai a trust may he declared in favor of the complainant as heir of his mother.

Dexter B. Potter and Nathan B. Lewis, for complainant. Charles J. Arms, for respondent.

Assuming all that the complainant alleges, although there is a forcible denial by the respondent, we think it is clear that no case for a trust is shown.

It has been held by this court that where A. orally agrees with B. to buy for him real estate of C., in which sale no interest of B. forms a part, and A. then buys it for himself, no trust arises. It is a promise without consideration, which is not enforceable. Aborn v. Padelford, 17 R. I. 143; Jenckes v. Cook, 9 R. I. 520.

The ground of equity jurisdiction chiefly urged is that the respondent obtained the estate at an inadequate price. But this is a matter in which the heirs of Sophia Dyer are concerned, and not the complainant. If the respondent procured an unfair sale, the heirs may be able to set it aside. The complainant, however, cannot acquire a right upon that ground.

Bill dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) The bill alleges that, at the commissioner’s sale of real estate owned by Sophia Dyer, in which the complainant’s mother, Lydia A. Whiting, had a life lease, she agreed with the respondent, her nephew, that he should appear for her at the sale to purchase the estate for her, on account of which agreement others did not bid, and that the *279 respondent purchased the estate at an inadequate price in his own name, and now holds it. The prayer is thai a trust may he declared in favor of the complainant as heir of his mother.

Dexter B. Potter and Nathan B. Lewis, for complainant. Charles J. Arms, for respondent.

Assuming all that the complainant alleges, although there is a forcible denial by the respondent, we think it is clear that no case for a trust is shown.

It has been held by this court that where A. orally agrees with B. to buy for him real estate of C., in which sale no interest of B. forms a part, and A. then buys it for himself, no trust arises. It is a promise without consideration, which is not enforceable. Aborn v. Padelford, 17 R. I. 143; Jenckes v. Cook, 9 R. I. 520.

The ground of equity jurisdiction chiefly urged is that the respondent obtained the estate at an inadequate price. But this is a matter in which the heirs of Sophia Dyer are concerned, and not the complainant. If the respondent procured an unfair sale, the heirs may be able to set it aside. The complainant, however, cannot acquire a right upon that ground.

Bill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A. 181, 21 R.I. 278, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiting-v-dyer-ri-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack