RUPERT ACWORTH JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES ELBERT JACKSON AND ROBERT ERDMAN JACKSON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Three brothers disputed ownership of British West Indies land. The two appellees claimed they furnished funds for the appellant to purchase land on their behalf, but the appellant took title in his own name. After initially executing a deed of gift, the appellant repudiated it and asserted exclusive ownership. The court affirmed the lower court's finding of a resulting trust and upheld the trial court's jurisdiction over the equitable matter.
The court affirmed the decree finding a resulting trust and upholding the trial court's jurisdiction. Courts of equity have extra-territorial jurisdiction to determine resulting trusts in land when they have jurisdiction over the parties, even if not over the land itself, because the action determines personal rights rather than adjudicating legal or equitable title to the land.
“The agreement was entered into in Florida where the agreement was made; one of the Plaintiffs domiciled, and where the Defendant was found at the time of suit. Under the circumstances involved, the Courts have long recognized the extra-territorial jurisdiction of a Court of equity where the court has jurisdiction of the parties but not of the land in matters of resulting trusts.”
Establishes the jurisdictional basis for equitable courts to hear resulting trust cases affecting parties within their jurisdiction despite the land being located outside the state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees furnished appellant with cash and credit to purchase British West Indies land owned by their sister. Appellant, acting as agent, purchased t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This was an action between brothers where the two Appellees sued claiming that they had furnished Appellant with funds (cash expenses and a line of credit) to purchase, for them, certain lands located in the British West Indies and then owned by their sister; that Plaintiff, while acting as their agent and using said funds had purchased the lands but had taken title in his own name and denied any right or interest therein on the part of Appellants; that, approximately twenty-one months after the purchase Defendant, upon being called upon to carry out the trust, executed and delivered to Plaintiffs a deed of conveyance of said lands recited to be as a gift; that he thereafter repudiated the deed and trust, took possession of the lands and *693asserted exclusive title and right of possession thereto.
Defendant denied the jurisdiction of the Florida Court, the agreement to purchase and the execution of the deed of gift.
The Appellant has presented four points of law which he conceived to he determinative of the issues on this appeal. Two of these questions were disposed of by-order denying rehearing in the Court below, which recites that the Chancellor had not intended to rule upon the validity or legal effect of the purported deed of gift, but did find that the resulting trust in the land was created by the facts as proven. The decree of the Chancellor enjoins and restrains Defendant-Appellant from asserting ownership of the lands involved, and from making any other claim, public or private, of ownership thereof. The determinative questions, therefore, on this appeal, are the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decree and the jurisdiction of the Court. As to the former, we find that there is ample support in the evidence for the findings of the Chancellor.
As to the matter of jurisdiction, the decree of the Court does not adjudicate any legal or equitable interest or title in the land. The gist of this action is the determination of the personal rights of Plaintiffs as against the Defendant. The agreement was entered into in Florida where the agreement was made; one of the Plaintiffs domiciled, and where the Defendant was found at the time of suit. Under the circumstances involved, the Courts have long recognized the extra-territorial jurisdiction of a Court •of equity where the court has jurisdiction of ■the parties but not of the land in matters of resulting trusts. (See Re-Statement of Law, Conflict of Laws, section 239, Existence of Equitable Interests in Land, p. 323). The principle is clearly stated in Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. 5, section 1318, and is quoted with approval by the Supreme •Court of Florida in the case of Fraser v. Cohen, 1947, 159 Fla. 253, 31 So.2d 463. See also 54 Am.Jur., Trusts, sections 561-564, pages 438-440; 90 C.J.S. Trusts § 454, pp. 870, 876; and the cases cited in Gulda v. Second Nat. Bank, 323 Mass. 100, 80 N.E.2d 12, 15 A.L.R. 2d at page 610.
Accordingly, the decree appealed from is affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bethell v. Peace, 441 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1971)…e. In these circumstances there are sufficient Florida contacts to justify a Florida state courts’ finding jurisdiction of a suit for declaratory judgment; here, in effect, the district court sat as a state court. See Jackson v. Jackson, Fla. App., 129 So. 2d 692. What substantive law Florida would apply is a different question. When dealing with contracts to sell land, rather than actual conveyances, courts have sometimes applied the substantive law that would be applied under the conflicts rule dealing wit…
Authorities Cited
- Fraser v. SOL Cohen, 159 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1947)