Suit v. Suit

Page, J., delived the opinion of the Court. This apppeal is from a decree of the lower Court declaring, that the estate of S. Taylor Suit is entitled in equity to the property in dispute, and restraining Arthur B. Suit from setting up any further claim thereto. The questions involved, arise in the following manner. Arthur B. Suit filed a bill of complaint charging that he is entitled to a one-third undivided in ⁵⁴⁰ terest in certain land particularly described in the bill (and which will be referred to hereafter for convenience as the Brown dower land), and that the defendants named in the bill are entitled to the other two-thirds.

The prayer of the bill is for a sale for the purpose of division. After proper proceedings, a decree for the sale of "the property was passed. The trustee named therein made and reported a sale of part of the land, and an audit was made wherein one-third of the proceds of sale were assigned to Arthur Bingham Suit. The trustee thereupon reported to the Court that Rosa P. Suit claimed the amount which had been allowed by the audit to Arthur B. Suit, that only a small part of the land had been sold, and that by reason of Rosa Suit’s claim, the trustee cannot make sale of the residue ; and prayed that Arthur B. Suit and Rosa P. Suit, as widow and trustee of her children (whose names are unknown to the petitioner) may be required to answer, etc. Both of these parties answered this petition, and asked the Court to determine to whom the proceeds of the sale of the one undivided third interest of the Brown land legally and equitably belonged.

Testimony was taken by both parties, and on the 28th day of August, 1902, the Court decreed that “the estate of S. Taylor Suit, was entitled to the property and the proceeds of any sale thereof.” From this decree Arthur Bingham Suit has appealed. There is no dispute about the chain of title. James L. Brown, as heir at- law of his father, was entitled to a one undivided third interest in the land subject to a life estate in his mother, who held her interest under and by virtue of an assignment of dower out of the lands of her deceased husband. Brown’s interest was conveyed to S. Taylor Suit, and the contention of the parties now grows out of transactions occurring subsequently between S. T. Suit and his son Arthur.

S. T. Suit was indebted to one Charles K. Bingham in a large amount. His claims were placed in May’s hands, as trustee, with power to sue for the same or arrange “in some mode that would secure them and to hold the proceeds” for the benefit of Arthur Bingham Suit after Bingham’s death, as per letter following : ⁵⁴¹ Jacksonville, Fla., November 30th, 1875. George T. May. My Dear Sir:—Mr. Suit will place some papers in your hands on which I wish to bring suit, or settle in some shape that will secure same, and hold the proceeds for the benefit of Arthur B. Suit after my death.

Please so arrange it that I may have the benefit of the interest on the same during my life, and then go to Arthur Bingham Suit. I wish you to act as trustee for him. Manage this as you may think advisable for all parties as above required. My regards to your family.

My health is miserable at this time, but hope soon to improve. Most respectfully yours, C. K. Bingham. This indebtedness of Suit to Bingham, on the 25th day of March, 1876, amounted to the sum of $13,615.52; and for the purpose of liquidating this “in part,” May, trustee, on that day purchaséd for $3,800, and received a conveyance in fee from Samuel of the “ Joy land,” ^S/i acres, and also of 7J^ acres, and in addition the Brown dower land, 101 acres. “ To have and to hold the same in trust for A. B. Suit and to be managed for his benefit, as the said trustee may think advantageous, as manifested and set forth in said declaration of trust.” It appears from the recital in this deed that it was conveyed to May, trustee, for the use of the said Arthur B. Suit, and for the purpose of liquidating in part the said indebtedness of S. T. Suit to the said Bingham. This deed which indicated an out and out purchase of the property described therein for the sum of $3,800, placed the beneficial and equitable ownership of the property in Arthur B. Suit; which equitable estate was converted into a legal estate by the deed of George T. May, trustee, to Arthur B. Suit, dated the 18th of August, 1900.

It thus appears that by these conveyances the legal and equitable title to the land in question was in Arthur B. Suit and must still be in him, unless by some means it has been taken out of him. On the 27th day of June, 1884, Arthur B. Suit and his father entered into an agreement in writing the effect of which, it is con ⁵⁴² tended by the appellee, was to discharge the Brown dower land from any claim in equity which Arthur might otherwise have had upon it. That agreement provides that “ whereas Arthur Bingham Suit holds certain claims and demands ” against the said George T. May and Samuel T. Suit “ as trustee,” and whereas he has agreed ‘‘to relinquish all such claims and demands, and to make to the said May and Suit” and to each of them, as trustees, as aforesaid, full receipts, acquittances and discharges for the said claims and demands;” therefore in consideration of the same and for divers other good and valuable considerations moving from Arthur B. Suit to them, Samuel T. Suit agreed to convey and assign to Arthur B. Suit, “ By good and sufficient deeds,” all that part of Suitland which is fully described in the agreement; and also “ to put Arthur B. Suit in the full and undisputed possession ” of the tract by January ist, 1885, and to free the same “ from all and every incumbrance,” within two years from the date of the execution of the agreement; and to the performance -of this agreement the parties severally bound themselves each to the other in the sum of two thousand dollars. Now what claims and demands “were in existence” when this agreement was made?

The trust in May was created by the letter of Bingham, and