Purviance v. Glenn

Tuck, J., delivered the opinion of this court. We are of opinion that the petition of the appellant was properly dismissed, for the reason stated by the Court of Common Pleas. It, is very clear, as shown by the appellant’s counsel, that ²⁰⁶ the Court of Common Pleas has exclusive jurisdiction in the distribution of insolvents’ estates in the city of Baltimore, and that it may proceed in a summary way against trustees, under the circumstances mentioned in the acts of Assembly referred to on this point. But it does not follow, that these powers may be exerted against their executors or administrators for the purpose of compelling them to account in that court for the trust estate.

This action of the court against the trustee is based on some alleged default or neglect of duty in his capacity as such, which cannot be imputed to his executor or administrator. ■ The latter derives no. authority from the insolvents’ court, is not under its control nor accountable to it, any more than the trustee is to the orphans court. Although trusts are peculiarly the subject of equity jurisdiction, this particular class of trusts has been confided to courts of common law, in regard to which, in the exercise of a special authority, they proceed upon principles of equity without being courts of equity. Carter vs. Dennison, 7 Gill, 157 . We must not mistake this control of the court over the trust funds, for the power of the trustee to institute proceedings in the proper tribunals for the purpose of collecting them together.

Property belonging to the insolvent may be in different places, or suits in equity may be necessaiy to vacate assignments; in all which cases it is manifest; that the trustee can proceed only in the courts having jurisdiction over thesubject matter, as in other controversies. But when the suits are terminated, the funds must be accounted for in the court from which the trustee derives his authority. So exclusive is this jurisdiction, that where a bill was filed in equity to vacate a fraudulent deed and the deed avoided, that court was not allowed to retain the case and grant complete relief by distributing the proceeds, nor even to the extent of making sale of the property by a trustee of its own appointment, but the case was left to the power and action of the trustee in insolvency. Jamison vs. Chesnut, Ante, 34.

The prevention of confusion and possible conflict of jurisdictions is one of the reasons assigned for confining the settlement of these trusts to one and the same tribunal. 5 Gill, 138 . Waters vs. Dashiell, 1 Md. Rep., 471 . This consideration ²⁰⁷ applies with, equal force in restraining these courts from drawing within their special jurisdiction matters more properly cognizable in other courts, and thereby, as incident to the duty of making distribution of the insolvent’s estate,