Phila. Trust Co. v. Phila. & R. C. & I. Co.

Citations

• 139 Pa. 534
• 21 A. 70
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1022

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Although, in order that a contract may be legally binding upon an esr tate under the management of several trustees, it is necessary that there be a joint exercise of judgment by all in entering into it, yet it does not follow that if such joint action is not clearly shown equity will relieve from it, in the face of a contract made by one of the trustees, which if valid would bar such relief.</p> <p>2. The trustees might go into a court of law and enforce their legal rights, and nothing less than a strict joint agreement of all would be a defence; but, when they ask a chancellor to help them, he will look into all the circumstances to see if equity requires him to do so, and, if the circumstances be such as would absolutely bar parties acting in their own right, he may refuse to give affirmative aid.</p> <p>(a) One of three trustees made an agreement that the defendant should hold certain bonds belonging to the trust-estate, as security for the payment of certain moneys to the defendant by the trustees. On the faith of this agreement, the defendant paid to said trustee certain other moneys of greater amount. The other two trustees knew of the arrangement, made no objection to it, and participated in the disposition of the money paid by the defendant.</p> <p>3. Upon these facts, a bill filed by the successor of the trustees, to compel the defendant to deliver up the bonds, alleging that as matter of law the moneys for the security of which the defendant held them, were really not due from the trust-estate, and that said agreement was invalid, was dismissed for want of equity, and also because, by an unexplained delay of more than thirteen years in filing the bill the plaintiff was guilty of laches.</p>