Railroad Company v. Durant
95 U.S. 576 (1877)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Railroad Company v. Durant, 95 U.S. 576 (1877)

Railroad Company v. Durant

95 U.S. 576

Syllabus

1. Where a conveyance of real estate is made to the grantee, as "trustee," without setting forth for whom or for what purpose he is trustee, parol evidence is admissible to establish the fact.

2. A trustee cannot claim adversely to those for whom he acquired and holds the property.

This was a bill in equity by the Union Pacific Railroad Company against Thomas C. Durant to compel his conveyance to the company of certain lots and lands.

The case made by the complainant in its bill is substantially this:

That in the month of November, 1863, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, having commenced surveys at or in the vicinity of Omaha for the purpose of ascertaining the best point for the location of the eastern terminus of its road and the most practicable route thence westward, certain citizens of Omaha proposed to the engineer in charge of said surveys to convey to the defendant, the then vice-president and principal managing officer and agent of the company, for its use, certain tracts of lands and certain lots therein described,

"said conveyances to be made conditional upon the location of the said eastern terminus within one and a quarter miles of Farnham Street,

Page 95 U. S. 577

thence running west from said point towards the Platte Valley;"

that such proposal was accepted and the conditions performed, and that the several parties, being satisfied therewith, made conveyances according to their agreement, but by the express direction of the defendant his name was inserted therein as grantee and trustee; that the said conveyances recited that they were made

"in consideration of the location of the eastern terminus of the Union Pacific Railroad at Omaha, within one and a quarter miles of Farnham Street, thence running west from said point to the Platte Valley;"

that it was the intention of the donors to convey, and that the defendant took the lands and lots in trust for the company, it having furnished the consideration therefor, and still so holds the same, but has refused, upon request, to convey to the company. The bill prays for a decree to compel him to execute the trust and convey them to the complainant.

The substance of the answer is that the company did not fix the location of the eastern terminus or the westward route of the road, but that the surveys therefor were made at the defendant's individual expense and under his management and direction; that the proposed donation was intended to be made to him individually in order to secure his influence with the president and the company in establishing said terminus and route; that the word "trustee" was inserted in said deeds solely at his own instance, to declare a trust in favor of the grantors in case of a nonperformance of the conditions of the agreement; that he has conveyed to the corporation a portion of the lands necessary to its use, but that the residue he still holds; that the sole consideration of said conveyances was the location of the eastern terminus within one mile and a quarter of Farnham Street, and the approval of the route westward by the president, in whom alone was vested the power to locate the said terminus or the said route; that the condition of the contract never was complied with, and that therefore there has been a reversion of the lots and lands to the grantors, for whom he holds, and who should be made parties to the action.

Upon the final hearing, the court dismissed the bill on the ground, as to most of the property in controversy, that the proposal

Page 95 U. S. 578

pursuant to which the conveyances were subsequently executed to the defendant as trustee was secured by an illegal and oppressive exercise of his power as the acting president and active manager of the company, and that he held the property as trustee for the donors, except as to certain tracts, which, it was admitted, he had received as trustee for the company.

From the decree dismissing the bill this appeal was taken.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.