Oliver v. Piatt

67 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Carter

    217 U.S. 286 (1910)   Cited 121 times
    In United States v. Carter, 217 U.S. 286, 30 S. Ct. 515, 54 L. Ed. 769, 19 Ann. Cas. 594, it was held that the fact that the United States had suffered no pecuniary damage from a fraud committed against it did not prevent recovery.

    As to tracing trust funds and trusts ex maleficio, see 2 Pomeroy's Eq. Jr., 2d ed., 1053. As to elections which the cestui que trust may exercise in respect to the right to claim fraudulently diverted property or its proceeds, or to take a money judgment for the trust assets dissipated, and also as to the election which may be exercised as to the remedy at common law or in equity, see May v. Claire, 11 Wall. 217; Smith v. Vodges, 92 U.S. 186; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U.S. 122; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; 17 A. E. Enc. Law, 475. Where the trustee commingles trust money with his own the right and lien of the beneficiary attaches to this entire combined fund. 2 Pomeroy's Eq. Jr., § 1076; Eaton on Equity, § 210.

  2. United States v. California c. Land Co.

    148 U.S. 31 (1893)   Cited 74 times

    A person holding under a quitclaim deed may be a bona fide purchaser. Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 11 How. 297; May v. Le Claire, 11 Wall. 217; Villa v. Rodriguez, 12 Wall. 323; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. 578; Baker v. Humphrey, 101 U.S. 494; and Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U.S. 156, questioned on this point. A deed by which the grantor aliens, releases, grants, bargains, sells and conveys the granted estate to the grantee, his heirs and assigns, to have and to hold the same and all the right, title and interest of the grantor therein, is a deed of bargain and sale, and will convey an after acquired title.

  3. Merritt Oil Corporation v. Young

    43 F.2d 27 (10th Cir. 1930)   Cited 9 times

    The record clearly shows, and counsel for appellant concedes, that the appellant acquired the title to these properties by a "compromise agreement made by the appellant and the government"; that is, by a surrender of its rights under the locations made in 1915. Mr. Justice Story laid down the governing principle when he said in Oliver et al. v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 401, 11 L. Ed. 622, that: "And if the trustee has invested the trust property, or its proceeds, in any other property into which it can be distinctly traced, the cestui que trust has his election either to follow the same into the new investment, or to hold the trustee personally liable for the breach of the trust.

  4. Nellis v. Johnson

    53 P.2d 1192 (Nev. 1936)   Cited 5 times

    He derived his title on the morning of the trial of the action, by quitclaim deed from appellant, to one-half interest in the six mining claims composing the group. Oliver et al. v. Piatt (U.S.), 11 L.Ed. 332; May v. LeClaire et al., 20 L.Ed. 50; Dickerson v. Colgrove et al., 25 L.Ed. 618. By the Court, COLEMAN, J.:

  5. Bourne v. Hall

    10 R.I. 139 (R.I. 1872)   Cited 8 times

    Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch. 566; Gallatian v. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 361; Hagthorp et ux. et al. v. Hook's Adm'rs, 1 Gill J. 270; Wormley v. Wormley, 1 Brock. 330. 5th. That the registration of a conveyance operates as constructive notice to all subsequent purchasers of any estate legal or equitable in the same property, and that where a trust is created under a will, the record of the will in the probate court is notice of the trust to everyone, and there is no difference between actual and constructive notice in its consequences. Story's Eq. Juris. § 403, and cases cited; Parkist v. Alexander, 1 Johns. Ch. 398; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. U.S. 333; Ellis v. Woods, 9 Rich. Eq. 19; Hill on Trustees, 510. 6th. That the respondent being a purchaser with notice held the estate subject to the trust in the same manner as the trustees themselves held it; and a court of equity would compel him to perform the trust. Story's Eq. Juris. §§ 1257, 1258-1261; Shiba v. Ely, 2 Halst. Chan. 181; Cholmondely v. Clinton, 2 Meriv. 357-8-9; v. S.C. 2 Jac. Walker, 153; Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152; Wells v. Beall, 2 Gill J. 458. 7th. That the trust aforesaid is such a subsisting and continuing trust as is not reached by the statute pleaded by the defendant; nor is lapse of time a bar to the suit.

  6. Spencer v. Pettit

    268 S.W. 779 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)   Cited 11 times

    The trustee is not to be permitted to profit by his actions, so if he changes the character of the trust property and the change proves advantageous, the beneficiary may take advantage of it if he so elects, and if the change proves disastrous the trustee may be held liable for the conversion. Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 401, 11 L.Ed. 653; Kennedy v. Baker, 59 Tex. 150."

  7. Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Co.

    298 U.S. 448 (1936)   Cited 70 times
    In Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co., 1936, 298 U.S. 448, 457, 56 S.Ct. 792, 796, 80 L.Ed. 1274, the court said: "The wrongdoer must yield the gains begotten of his wrong."

    Upon a statement of an account, a patentee is not looked upon as a "quasi-partner of the infringers," under a duty to contribute to the cost of the infringing business as a whole. McKee Glass Co. v. H.C. Fry Glass Co., 248 F. 125, 128. He is the victim of a tort, free at his own election to adopt what will help and discard what will harm. Crosby Valve Co. v. Safety Valve Co., supra; Permutit Co. v. Refinite Co., 27 F.2d 695, 698; Starr Piano Co. v. Auto Pneumatic Action Co., 12 F.2d 586, 589; Canda Bros. v. Michigan Malleable Iron Co., supra; cf. Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 401; Buffum v. Barceloux Co., 289 U.S. 227, 236; King v. Talbot, 40 N.Y. 76, 91. The privilege of election is not contested by the defendants if costs as well as prices can be ascertained with precision. They take the ground, however, that if such precision is unattainable, the privilege must fail.

  8. United States v. Dunn

    268 U.S. 121 (1925)   Cited 57 times
    In United States v. Dunn, 268 U.S. 121, 45 S. Ct. 451, 69 L. Ed. 876, referred to by the appellant, the United States for a minor Indian, brought suit to set aside a lease of the minor's land by his guardian or to impress the stock of the corporation to which the lease was assigned with a trust.

    "It is an undoubted principle of this court that as between a cestui qui trust and trustee and all parties claiming under the trustee, otherwise than by purchase for valuable consideration without notice, all property belonging to a trust, however much it may be changed or altered in its nature or character, and all the fruits of such property, whether it is in its original or its altered state, continues to be subject to or affected by the trust." To the same effect are Oliver et al. v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 401; Lane v. Dighton, Amb. 409; Ex parte v. Dumars, Atkyns, 232, 233; Taylor v. Plummer, 3 Maule Selwyn, 562, 571; Cobb v. Knight, 74 Me. 253; People v. California Safe Deposit Trust Co., 175 Cal. 756; Hubbard v. Burrell, 41 Wis. 365. The rule is the same as against a fraudulent vendee who has exchanged the property purchased for other property.

  9. United States v. Leary

    245 U.S. 1 (1917)   Cited 5 times

    Seymour v. Railroad Co., 25 Barb. 284; Grinnel v. Suydam, 3 Sandf. 132; Drake v. Taylor, 7 Fed. Cas., No. 4067; Boone v. Childs, 10 Pet. 193; Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 69. As to the law relative to the tracing of trust funds, see May v. LeClaire, 11 Wall. 217, 236; Smith v. Vodges, 92 U.S. 186; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U.S. 122; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; Van Allen v. Bank, 52 N.Y. 1-5; National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U.S. 70; Knatchbull v. Hallett, 13 Ch. Div. 696; Cook v. Tullis, 18 Wall. 332; Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U.S. 365; Sexton v. Kessler, 225 U.S. 90. Mr. Aubrey E. Strode, with whom Mr. J.T. Coleman, Jr., was on the brief, for Leary et al., Administrators. Mr. Abram J. Rose, with whom Mr. Alfred C. Pette was on the brief, for Kellogg, appellee.

  10. Virginia v. West Virginia

    206 U.S. 290 (1907)   Cited 16 times

    The observations of Lord Cottenham, in Campbell v. Mackay, 1 Mylne Craig, 603, that it is impracticable to lay down any rule as to what constitutes multifariousness, as an abstract proposition; that each case must depend upon its own circumstances; and much must be left where the authorities leave it, to the sound discretion of the court, have been often affirmed in this court. Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 411; Gaines v. Relf, 2 How. 619, 642. But we do not mean to rule that the bill is multifarious. It is true that the prayer contains, among other things, the request, "that all proper accounts may be taken to determine and ascertain the balance due from the State of West Virginia to your oratrix in her own right and as trustee aforesaid," but it also prays that the court "will adjudicate and determine the amount due to your oratrix by the State of West Virginia in the premises.