Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co.,
121 U.S. 105 (1887)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 121 U.S. 105 (1887)

Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 121 U.S. 105 (1887)

Argued March 24-25, 1887

Decided April 4, 1887

121 U.S. 105


A cestui qui trust under twenty-six trust deeds of land, executed to five different sets of trustees, to secure the payment of money filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to procure a sale of the land. Some of the deeds covered only a part of the land. One of them covered the whole. All of the trustees were made defendants, and the bill was taken pro confesso as to ail of them. As to the trustees in twenty-two of the deeds, the bill alleged that they had declined to execute the trusts. The holders of judgments and mechanics' liens and purchasers of some of the land were made defendants. Some of the trust deeds did not specify any length of notice of the time and place of sale by advertisement. The bill alleged the insolvency of the grantor and the inadequate value of the land to pay the liens. On an objection by the grantor that the cestui que trust could not maintain the bill, held that the objection could not be sustained.

The bill was not multifarious.

The Special Term made a decree for the sale of the land without hearing evidence on issues raised by the pleadings. On appeal, the General Term reversed the decree and remanded the cause to the Special Term for further proceedings, with permission to the parties to apply to the Special Term for leave to amend their pleadings. Held that this was a proper order under § 772 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia.

A decree in a prior suit held not to be pleadable as res adjudicata in view of the proceedings in that suit.

Page 121 U. S. 106

Pleas filed with an answer, where the answer extends to the whole matter covered by the pleas, held to have been properly overruled.

The appointment of a receiver twenty days after the filing of the bill to collect rents and to lease unrented property upheld as within the rule laid down in Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co., 107 U. S. 378, 107 U. S. 395.

The appointment of a receiver by an interlocutory decree held not to have been superseded, because it was not expressly continued by the final decree.

Commissions on loans not paid by the borrower to the lender held not to constitute usury.

Bill in equity. Decree for complainant. Respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.